Chewtobacca said:
Bingowings said:
Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.
It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)
On a discussion board, people will always post both factual statements and opinions, and it does not seem at all beneficial me to treat what sound like factual statements as opinions. I don't see that any "perceived haughtiness" was at work here: what sounded for all the world like a factual statement quite naturally provoked a correction because it was phrased in a categorical way.
It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement. That would have been "PT is eu". Instead I said "PT IS eu". The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information. If I was merely stating what I thought was the accepted orthodox position I would not have needed that stress on the "is". One could still misread it as merely attempting to go by the orthodox position, but the clue was there. And this is OT.com, where people choose to reject the PT. It's not a big jump in thinking to recognize my statement as more of that. And many people on this board are familiar with my posting and views. They know I reject the pt and that I am aware of the official definition and that I wouldn't be making a big mistake like that and that I would be likely to state pt-rejecting views.