[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Dave,

DMB said:
I see a pattern in your reply, Matt. My editing job shows you what I 
see. Sure, it's a bit rude to complain in this way but I think it has the 
advantage of being exceptionally clear. If we're trying to be precise, 
I think "disingenuous" is probably the best word for your response. 
That word summarizes my complaint. I'll just leave it at that.

Matt:
I'm sorry you feel that way.  At the risk of continuing to sound 
disingenuous, I'm not sure why you feel that way when I was trying 
to sincerely and honestly respond to the intellectual pressure you 
were putting to my positions and arguments.  For example, if I was 
being disingenuous when I said that "I don't get how I've rendered 
DQ as trivial, inert, or meaningless," that would mean I _did_ very 
well understand how I was doing this.  But I gave reasons for why I 
thought you _might_ be thinking this, even acknowledged its 
plausibility given a different context, but tried to rebut its plausibility 
in this context.  How were those reasons given in bad faith?  Aren't 
they the intellectual responsible thing to bring to bear?  (And 
further, I have no idea why you think it's rude to complain about 
insincerity, unless that was a little disingenuous, ironic joke.)

Many of the "unsures" and "unclears" were rhetorical attempts to 
indicate that I am not closing my mind to rearticulations of your 
opposition.  I do not consider myself to have canvassed completely 
all your possible responses and efforts to articulate what you think.  
I do not think I've insulated and fortified my position against all 
possible arguments.  I want to be precise in acknowledging that 
there might be something I'm missing to your point.  What they 
partly indicate is my refusal to flounder about in an open ocean of 
possible argument.  I'm not going to just _assume_ I know what 
your argument is ahead of actually dealing with your argument.  
(Call it the direct experience of argumentation.)  I sense the general 
point you want to press, but in the particulars I try and indicate why 
I don't think they work, or my position doesn't feel the force of them, 
etc.  I don't want to put arguments into your mouth, so I only want 
to deal with what I was given, and not move beyond those points to 
general pronouncements about you or your position.  I don't feel I 
understand your thought well-enough to do so without getting it 
wrong.

I'm really quite baffled by this response, Dave.

Matt