At 10:39 AM Wednesday 5/23/2007, Dan Minette wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of jon louis mann > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:44 PM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Flatulence > > > > you are absolutely correct, ronn. one of the classic specious > > arguments that bushco sycophants... > > Sorry. That's where I stop reading. > > -- Ronn! :) > > > > really?-) you don't seem like the sort who doesn't consider all > > viewpoints. i don't know anything about the regulars here, but i > > assume most are admirers of the brin perspective which is open, > > empirical, curious and pragmatic. it is difficult, sometimes, to tell > > when someone is being ironic, sarcastic, sardonic, rhetorically > > flatulent, or completely sincere?~{ > > -- jon How about "All of the above"? >Well, some of us have been discussing various ideas here for quite some >time. I think I've been here > 7 years, and I think I recall Ronn being >here before me. Brin-L was one of the first lists I somehow stumbled across after getting on-line in the latter part of 1996. (There are a couple of other lists I could name that I was definitely on before Brin-L, but not many.) >One pattern I've seen here, as well as elsewhere, is that >polemics almost always add more heat than light. There are exceptions to >all generalities (including this one), but the signal/noise ratio in >polemics tends to be very low. > >Statements such as " one of the classic specious arguments that bushco >sycophants" have a very high tendency of being followed by polemics. It's a >statement that indicates a lack of openness to other idea. > >Now, it's true that there are other possibilities. I tend to search for >these, and thus tend to read on. But, I certainly can understand someone >who cannot read and think about every message in every list will have such a >filter. > >Dan M. When I wrote "Sorry. That's where I stop reading." it was intended as a somewhat sarcastic response to the suggestion (completely serious or not) that all who may question any part of the "party line" on anthropogenic global warming are therefore of necessity "bushco sycophants" . . . Which may well have come across as more of a personal attack than what I meant it as, which was that such statements whether directed at the right or left tend, as Dan said, to be followed (or in the middle of) polemics rather than reasoned discussion. Not that a diet of nothing but reasoned discussion is always to be desired . . . ;) Chalk up any excess of zeal in my language to my being rhetorically flatulent* . . . _____ *I dunno what it means, either, but it sounds bad . . . No Shortage Of Hot Air Personally Either Maru -- Ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
