List: I agree completely with Edwina. What John Sowa failed to mention is that he initiated our off-List exchange by relaying similar comments about me that others had sent to him. I will not provide them here, because I believe that it is highly inappropriate to post someone else's off-List statements without permission--even anonymously--which is what John has now done. As I have said repeatedly, I am content to make my case to the best of my ability, and let those reading along decide for themselves who has the more persuasive argument.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and > conclusions of an argument. > > Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in > themselves, include any argument. If they did include data and analysis - > then, they would be posted to the list. > > So, I don't think that JAS can consider off-line comments as > 'argumentatively' supportive - so, there's no need to send them to anyone > else. After all - just because someone agrees with me [and my argument] > doesn't mean that I or they, are right in this opinion. We can see that > problem in the, at one time, strong popular support for > witches-causing-illness. > > I think an argument has to stand on its own merits. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
