Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. I don't believe I ever disputed that. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. I've used that language other times. As I stated before it has partly to do with how much I'm paying attention -- all evidence to the contrary aside I have other things to do than read/post here -- and partly with how certain I am of something. Also, I like the occasional shock value phrase. You might have been the one to insert the digression, but you weren't the one to drag it into a quagmire, FWIW. That was the work of someone else. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something completely? I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that during the last election. I think it is the framing device that underlies the anti-political correctness statements. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something completely? Course not. However, it was *never my intention* to suggest I was anything less than sure of my opinions on Iraq. Two years ago my opinion was that the case for attack had not been made, but I did wonder about the unconventional weapons -- after all, inspectors *had* been told there were some places they couldn't look. There was reasonable doubt but not enough, I thought, to justify an invasion. Now, having seen the total lack of smoking gun style evidence, having seen how the US's status has fallen, having seen the outrageous expenses being foisted off on our citizens, having seen the death tolls on both sides, I've become certain. Iraq is not justifiable. That is my point of view on the subject. That is what I think and I will not tone down my language on the topic because some have a hard time dealing with others who feel sure of some of their opinions. I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that during the last election. I think it is the framing device that underlies the anti-political correctness statements. There's something to be said for undermining PC speech as well. PC statements can sometimes go too far, after all. You're missing *my* frustration, what *I* am tired of, which is the implication that I'm either arrogant or juvenile -- or both -- for possessing certitude in some areas. We ALL do it. We ALL carry opinions of which we're certain. I am not swamped with hubris or with teenage boy macho any more than anyone else is who's sure of anything. I just happen to hold a view that some don't like, and rather than address the view, they address the way it's expressed. That's pointless. It is not an argument. It's not even a rebuttal. I'm really put off of discussing this further. At this point I'm just rehashing what I've said before, which suggests to me that it's just not getting through and there's no point in hammering the horse any longer. If you (or others) want to have a discussion about whether Iraq itself was justifiable, that's fine; I'll be glad to join in and maybe even have my opinion swayed. But I'm not going to engage in discussion of particulars of language, certitude of opinions or implicit disclaimers any longer. The topic is done to death, and I am personally done with it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 06:49 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) Welcome! I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. None that you (or any long-time members, either) want to hear about [again] :-D , but none that have any bearing on the current discussion. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 08:04 AM Friday 4/15/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. Thank you! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 05:58 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Agreed. One approach invites discussion which, with luck, may lead to discovery of the truth about the subject or to building a consensus of opinion, or at least leave the participants agreeing to disagree. The other approach is an invitation to an argument or a flamewar . . . I personally prefer the first type of discussion. YMMV. Though There Are Days When I Am In The Mood To Throw Gasoline On The Fire Maru -- Ronn! :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humo(u)r or irrational religious beliefs (including atheism). If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although that ugly little yapping dog next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
Dave, I also understand what you are saying and I would like to add my agreement to it as well. I can relate to the comments that Warren was making with respect to ones beliefs always being right from ones own point of view. I myself have gotten into many discussions with friends about that very subject. Most people either think the point is trivially true, or completely misunderstand it. So I just want to make it clear that I also agree with those comments. Even though I happen to feel that at any given time my current thoughts on a subject are right I still am able to recognize that many of my currently correct points of view differed in the past. When presented with new information I am thus rather confident that such views might stand the chance of changing in the future. While I feel that some views which have not changed in a long time might never change, I still must acknowledge the possibility (even if I only acknowledge it internally). However the fact that my right ideas might change in the future has nothing at all to do with the idea that someone else might (and very well dose) hold a differing view point on the subject. I might feel that they are wrong, but I still should be able to acknowledge without rancor that they do in fact equally believe in their right thoughts. Their thoughts clearly are based on different data than my own, or they interpret the same data differently than I do. Thus the point of any conversation with someone who holds a vastly differing idea than my own would be for me to learn any new data that they had, explain new data to them, or try to understand why our interpretations of common data differ. If we are able to agree on all of the major data points associated with a given subject, and also come to have similar interpretations of this data, then our ideas should largely be in sync. If you start out by dismissing the very possibility of someone else having valid data or valid interpretations this type of mutual exchange will not happen. In affect you are telling the other person that everything they know about the subject is wrong, or they are interpreting everything wrong, or both. You are claiming that there is nothing they can give to you, and instead they must, if they want to continue the conversation, start only listening to, and agreeing with your data and interpretations. It might not be your intention, but that is how it comes across. Please note the difference here between having to always admit that you are only expressing your own opinions vs trying to leave open the possibility that the other person might be right, even if you do not understand why yet. This subject is important to me because I am often (always?) a strong reductionist in any kind of argument. I always reduce complex things to one or two discrete elements and then build up from there (conversations are the transmission of data and interpretations of data...;). I am well aware however that the very act of a reduction has the chance of outright rejecting a large part of someone else's basis for their beliefs. I try to be away of this, but I do not always catch it. As a result I do my best to being open to correction if I do such a thing. Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
