Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:15:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1648 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> <snip>
> Perhaps we need a disclaimer from you. (or you from us) If I get the sense
> of what I snipped away, what you do when you post here isn't debate as most
> rationals understand it. Debate has a specific rigorous meaning.
The charter of the group reads as follows:
"lugnet.off-topic.debate– Off-topic (non-LEGO®) discussions: debates,
controversies, etc."
Although it's called .debate, I had always thought that there was room for
open personal discussions within threads. I apologize for misunderstanding.
> What you're
> doing isn't debate. Rather it's sharing your emotional outlook on matters
> that matter very much to you.
Noted.
I apologize if I caused any confusion. It won't happen again. I will be
staying out of any future debates in this group.
I didn't realize there was such a formal structure and adherance to rules
within the .debate group.
> There's nothing wrong with that, per se. In fact it's quite good and
> important. But it's liable to cause confusion if other participants aren't
> clear on that.
I thought I made it pretty clear that many of my statements were opinions
backed up by no facts whatsoever. It was not my intention to disguise
anything I said as fact, or break the rules of said debates. Again, my
apologies to the group.
> Take for example the whole "review" thing. I was frankly flummoxed when,
> after I and others presented clear and cogent definitions of what a review
> actually was and why your site posts weren't reviews, when after that, why
> you didn't agree with us and stop calling them reviews.
This isn't entirely true. I renamed them 'iPinions' at the end of that
discussion. They have been labled as such ever since.
http://www.apotome.com/builder/index.htm#ipinions
No one has complained since then.
> Rather it's as if we were talking about two completely different things and
> just weren't communicating at all. Different bands.
>
> This is the same thing, in some ways, isn't it?
Agreed. We have two different opinions on what qualifies as debate. My
dictionary defines it as such:
"A discussion of any question; argument; dispute."
That was all I saw the topic as being; a discussion of the question of the
value of reading. I guess the definition of 'debate' is open to
interpretation, but again I didn't realize that a formal imposed structure
existed within this group.
> You say heartfelt things about reading, things you believe, even know in
> your heart to be true, but provide no logical basis, proof, statistics, etc.
> (the sort of stuff that rational(1) people tend to want to see when
> evaluating arguments or discourse)
>
> Chris and others point that out and say that they're not ready to be
> convinced without data and logic to back up the assertion.
I can't disagree.
> I haven't yet replied to your comments on the 10020 auction threads for fear
> of the same disconnect. I can elaborate 1/2 dozen rational, logical,
> sensible reasons for why LD auctioned those sets off and why it's a good
> thing for LD and for us, and and and... and I can even possibly convince all
> the rational people I'm right!
Since that discussion isn't happening in .debate, do the same rules apply?
In that forum I am simply stating my preference as a customer. I feel the
auctions are bad for the company as a whole.
> But none of those will do a whit of good against a heartfelt feeling (held
> by an emotive person) that these auctions are "icky"(2). No reason, no
> logic, no numbers are going to counteract that. They just *are* icky and
> offend the sensibility of some.
Indeed. Which merits some discussion doesn't it? Often I've found myself
as the only one sharing a particular opinion about LEGO. At least on the
auction issue I'm at last a part of a group of folks who have similar feelings.
> 2 - That's Suz's term of course but it's a good generic shorthand for that
> viewpoint I think...
I liked her term. I thought it summed things up nicely.
> 3 - ever take a Myers-Briggs (sp?) ? What was your score?
Never heard of it, sorry. Is it some sort of intelligence test or
personality scoring or something? I found references on the web talking
about the 'Myers Briggs topology' as though it was some sort of testing
structure or methodology or something. But I couldn't find an actual test
called this.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
