Reasonably explaining my stanceVandana,
To quote me, to walk out of a controversy is not right. Which is what happened in this thread.
I would like to revisit the interactions that you had with me.
#603635 - "…reasonably explained my stance".
You provided your understanding of the term 'ears of corn' to rebut my point. Your interpretation of the word did not match the dictionary meaning. You concluded by stating that only your version would be considered.
Was that a 'reasonably explained stance'?
I thought you needed to be more convincing than that. You were passing off something incorrect as correct. Would a discussion on the matter not have been more appropriate? Shutting off all communication was a dictatorial stance.
I asked for you to cite your sources, and you did not comply. If I was indeed wrong I needed to be convinced – shown how or why I was incorrect. This was touted as a vocabulary building quiz. Was it not necessary to educate me, if I was incorrect?
I expected better handling of the issue, not an evasion of pointed questions. I expected a better explanation. You shut the door to a discussion. It was in that reference that I expected "…better from the managing editor of a site".
I did not make a personal attack – I could not address my responses to the wind. It had to be addressed to you. You raised a thread for feedback; was it only lines praise that I was supposed to post!
I did not question your competence but pardon my saying that you did it to yourself when you mentioned having the quiz checked by others.
Yes, I find the contests a joke, because the way they turn out. Now is that a crime too?
If you are correct, then prove me wrong. Don't walk away, refusing to conduct any more quizzes.
Cancelling the quiz just because of my statement - what does it say?