In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly pursue receivers until finally the truth is understood? / lonnie
Fair Warning is sufficient, I would think.... Then it's up to the "addressee".....( i.e., my chosen term for the recipient of a communication) Possessor... Communicator... Transposer... Addressee.... On Aug 13, 9:24 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > A) I see a problem. > B) Ask me if I care. > A) You might, if you knew more. > B) Try me. > . > . > . > B) I've heard enough, I can't make heads nor tails of it, go away. > A) If you reasoned better, then you would understand. > B) You say I'm stupid!? > A) Well, I could teach you how to understand what I am saying. It will take > a while. > B) Got unlimited long distance? > A) Yes, why? > B) Make random calls until you find someone who cares. BYE! > . > . > . > . > A) Hello? I see a problem. > > The question which I pose to the group regards the ethics of communication. > At what point does the obligation to tell the truth shift from the source to > the receiver. In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly pursue > receivers until finally the truth is understood? > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
