Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:07:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
826 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > If EVERYONE ignores his responses he mostly goes away and only puts
> > in the occasional URL from external sources, some of which are even useful
> > conversation starters.
>
> Y'know, I've actually thought about Scott's communciation style here a
> little bit and my general impression is that he, like many of us, tries to
> read what is here and make reasonably quick responses without getting too
> bogged down in the mire.
>
> And I have some sympathy for his reliance on links too -- I know I have
> begun to use them at length. I have even used numerous links to the same
> sort of material when the question has been "asked and answered" ad nauseam.
>
> By contrast, when one makes lengthy posts one often receives lengthy replies
> deconstructing each niggling little point one tried to make. When one is
> tossing off posts fairly frequently one does not have the time to edit and
> re-edit, ad infinitum. One wants to be given the benefit of the doubt over
> the details hoping the larger argument comes across at least semi-coherently.
>
> If we could all present our ideas, giving and receiving "the benefit of the
> doubt" generously from others, with an eye to at least some formal debate
> techniques, and possessing at least the minimal requisite knowledge of the
> subject under discussion (or the ready admission that one lacks same), then
> it could actually get good here. Or at least better.
>
> Anyway, when Scott is not acting in "personal vendetta" mode I find many of
> his posts fairly interesting.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Well said Richard.
What I would endeavour to change in the above, though, is, well, let me put
it this way--
Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves
my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link and/or citations)
and someone comes along and says, 'well, this one point of yours is
erronous, therefore the entire arguement is erronous' is, imho, wrong. Is
like the OJ Trial--we have the blood, we have the DNA, we have the motive,
we have the whole bunch of everything, all pointing to OJ, and yet--the
gloves don't fit!!--well, that *must* mean the rest of the case is false, so
that's that!
Now if someone refutes *every* point, then the hypothesis presented must be
re-examined. This is why I usually don't snip any portion of a post I reply
to, unless it's just to go off on a Dave tangent or to clear things up.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help. If I assert: (-> == implies ) A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true and provide facts or evidence FAB in support of A -> B FBC in support of B -> C FCD in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Y'know, I've actually thought about Scott's communciation style here a little bit and my general impression is that he, like many of us, tries to read what is here and make reasonably quick responses without getting too bogged down in the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 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
|
|
|
|
