[Phys-l] rules of the game?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

R. McDermott wrote:

> John, ...  Of 
> all the people with whom I've conversed on this list, you are the only one 
> who consistently annoys me with your responses.  I think that says a good 
> deal more about you than me. 

Why doesn't somebody try teaching me.  If you want me to play by different
rules, please tell me what rules I have violated in this case.

As far as I can tell, my offense is that I replied to a a note from
R. McDermott.
 1) I didn't even contradict him!   I suggested that his answer might
  be tautological.  Note that tautological is not wrong; one could
  argue that tautological is the opposite of wrong.
 2) I didn't even state that his answer /was/ tautological;  I said
  it sounded that way, leaving him an easy out if he wanted to
  explain that I had misheard.
 3) I softened my response by saying "N'est-ce pas?", making it
  explicitly a question, again leaving an easy way for somebody to
  answer my question without needing to contradict me.
 4) I commented on the words, not on the person who spoke the words.

These points conform to some rules I was taught, namely:
  A) People don't like to be contradicted, and often avoid contradicting
others.  People who ask questions tend to receive answers, whereas people
who make bold assertions run the risk of being contradicted.
  B) One should critcize the argument, not the person making the argument.

What should I learn from this?

I long ago learned that there are a couple of people on this list whose
work cannot be commented upon at all.

> Look at the other - helpful - responses I've 
> gotten and then read your own.  Do you see a difference in the tone? 

No, I don't see why the others would be considered more polite.
No, I don't see why the others would be considered more informative.