A couple of thoughts:
First, not all arguments can be "won", if winning means convincing rivals that you're right, and they're wrong. A good arguer will know when to say "enough's enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree". Beyond that point, the merits of the argument become secondary, and the arguer is just really pissing everyone off.
Second (and I learned this very very important lesson from Monty Python, so it must be true), an argument is not just a series of contradictions.
No it's not,
Yes it is.
No it's not.
See what I mean?
<vbg>
cheers, frank
ps: Who's Herbert Armstrong? Never heard of him... -ft
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Trolls Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:27:56 -0700
EVERY great innovator, in all fields of endeavor, held "a minority view" and
was "prepared to "argue it against more than one person and win the
argument." Galileo, Gandhi, Herbert Armstrong, Martin Luther king,
Copernicus. The converse, however, is not necessarily true.
Regards, Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Apparently it is someone who holds a minority view and is prepared to > argue it against more than one person and win the argument.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
