From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Sun Jan 07 2001 - 12:54:15 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Nichols" <steve@multisell.com>
> I am as worried by bad arguments as bad ethos (which I deny utterly
> by the way) .... and I will ruthlessly pursue the same to destruction.
> This is not a personal thing, I am totally detached, as when I play in
> chess tournaments .. win the game first, have a drink with the loser in
> the bar afterwards.
Yes, we all know you -think- you're a Vulcan, but the question remains, are
you, indeed, a Vulcan?
> The markets, since you draw attention to them, are a prime example of
> companies marketing their own particular brands in direct competition.
Yes, but you're missing my point. I'm talking about the value of internal
cooperation. (AND competition-- both are necessary.)
> Yes, but we are trying for truth-statements, not a compromise for the
> sake of it.
Perhaps. But as I've indicated, I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice the
truth, but rather to start realizing we probably don't have a monopoly on
it. I'm talking about the process-- about approaching an opponent's post in
a different way-- it is currently clear that we are very good at discovering
the flaws and not so good at (or interested in) illuminating rightness.
> Sure, I welcome any feedback on MVT, critical or otherwise, which throws
> new light on the issues and helps this field to make progress. But it
> is also important to refute wrongs and linguistic obfustification, even if
> this means hitting at peoples' cherished beliefs and self-image reliant on
> particular bits of their internal dialogue. Dan was inaccurate to accuse
me
> of name calling, but I apologise if I have caused anyone emotional turmoil
> by challenging deeply held convictions.
Keep challenging, that's fine. I'm glad that you're doing this. But it
might be refreshing to see people restrain themselves from constantly
seeking the -worst- possible interpretation of an opponent's arguments.
IMO, this often shows insufficient respect for the intelligence at the other
end of the discussion.
BTW, I'd like to make it clear that I believe that most people are guilty of
shaky ethos. As a result, I am not inclined to take very seriously those
who utterly deny it. Our posts are littered with tactics.
Consider, for instance, your above statement: "... I apologise if I have
caused anyone emotional turmoil by challenging deeply held convictions."
One wonders if you -really- regret causing emotion via challenging
convictions, or are instead claiming that your easily upset opponents are
clinging to false beliefs, through which you cleave with the white flame of
truth.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
::wild.ghost.studios | www.wildghost.com
::kung.fu.blue
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:38 MST