From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 09:55:57 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>However, the following *at least* are normally
>furthered by such discussions:
>For sure some think that this is all malarkey,
It sure does. Your observations sound wildly inconsistent with what I
recall observing, so it seems clear that at least one of us is not
objectively observing how people behave during debates.
>and instead propose that we should all "just
>get along", or that we "stop foolish disputing
>and learn to be more rational and harmonious".
Those sure sound like good goals to me, as long as the "be more rational"
part implies we should achieve them by being more objective rather than more
conformist. I sure wish I could do something effective towards achieving
those goals. Alas, the promising approaches appear to require skills I lack,
such as the ability to persuade the appropriate regulators to approve
real-money idea futures markets that would reward objectivity.
>That such advice has proven ineffective for
>about 40,000 years but still continues to be
>dispensed is a mystery to me (but one
>doubtless falling under the purview of
>point number 2 above).
Yes, given the opinions you've been expressing about people's motivations,
it's not surprising that it's a mystery to you.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:25 MST