--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I never said that, did I? > > > (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials > > > was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. > > > You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an > > > intellectual, and don't worry about proving yourcredentials...) > > > > Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an adhominem > > attack. Kettle? Black? > > Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, > advice on how to look better in the future. Information on howDavid > perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David > differently. > > I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains > an ad > hominem attack. > > Julia > > Then again, I'm having a bad week and am short on sleep -- maybe you > could spell it out for me?
Well, I think that I am closer to Jan's reading of the situation than yours, Julia. Namely that I treated David's post as being closer to "an attack" than to being "useful." In particular, I think that it is so important in List Discussions to put yourself in the shoes of other people before questioning their motives and tactics. (Michael Harney - please also take note of this.) Thus, a post that you may find to be profound and important may not necessarily regarded as such by other readers. Granted there's exceptions to this, like after several people asked me to post a defence of the Federal Marriage Amendment, I think that it is reasonable of me to expect that other readers of Brin-L consider that an important and profound post, even if people take their sweet time in responding to it. (Just kidding, Doug - I get busy too.... ;-) But as a general rule, I think that there are widely differing opinions on what constitutes an "important" argument among those on opposite sides of that issue on Brin-L. Anyhow, when I read David's post this morning, I honestly had (and indeed, still have) absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what discussion he is referring to. Again, he obviously considered a certain discussion to be profound and important - and I've already forgotten it. Thus, in terms of being "useful", since David provided no context to his charges of me stooping to ad hominem's and strawmen, I can't see that it will actually be much use to me. Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and end up far more likely just putting them on the defensive rather than making any positive change. Likewise, David didn't exactly win any sympathy points from me when he dismissed my claims of having my intellectual bona fides constantly questioned on this List (in ways that the Left-Wingers of this List do not) just one post after he previously wrote: "I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer." JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
