From: Rick Knight (rknight@platinum.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 1997 - 11:19:47 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
"I should add that I am tired of people claiming that we fear or react
defensively to these terms. That's just an attempt to argue by
intimidation, and I find it rude."
I reply,
Sorry if I am one of those people. It does occur for me that amongst
the many contributors to this list, there is a preference for those
things most proveable, tangible and material rather than anything
etherial, supposed, or otherwise imagined. I think there is validity
in both arenas and one should be neither entirely material and
pragmatic or lost in the clouds and a naive nudnick for any slick
story/meaning of life that comes along.
I certainly don't regard my tactic as arguing by intimidation (since I
don't profess to argue and intimidation is a shut down tactic in order
to be "right"/win, which in turn, limits information exchange).
Rudeness is interpretation and for the most part, the wordings of many
posts would have to be fairly explicit for me to interpret them as
rude since so much meaning is not imparted by this media (no body
language, inflection, etc., just words).
So it could be circularly observed that to brand comments (none were
referenced so we'll just go with the general tone of the digest) as
attempts to intimidate and then further labeling those comments rude
is a defense/fear mechanism in and of itself. Moreover, deciding to
be offended may be regarded as a tactic to divert attention away from
the informational exchange to devote to oneself and their feelings.
Rather a lot to extrapolate on such a brief statement but I am somehow
strangely compelled.
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:30 MST