From: Dan Clemmensen (dgc@shirenet.com)
Date: Sun Sep 29 1996 - 14:46:49 MDT
Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
>
> In message <199609281724.KAA06078@well.com>, John K Clark writes in
> response to Lyle Burkhead's unwillingness to maintain a coherent dialogue:
>
> > I think I need to change my
> > debating tactics with you and close my copy of Science Magazine and get out
> > Captain Eddy's book of 1001 insults.
>
> It would be wasted effort, John. Let Darwinism prevail.
>
> I wonder though, is there anyone else on the list besides Lyle that
> doesn't believe that MNT will achieve the bulk of the things that are
> being predicted for it? It would be good to know --- it might save us
> time and effort in wasted arguments.
>
I think we can refine this a bit. When it becomes clear that a
discussion is proceeding from differing sets of premises, either
party to the discussion, or any interested bystander, should point
this out. Then, each party can briefly state their premises. We can
then either move to a discussion of the premises, or we can agree
to disagree. This will save a lot of wasted bandwidth. Robin and
I ended up touching on a lot of fun subjects on these threads
before I understood the need to do this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:46 MST