To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 18026
18025  |  18027
Subject: 
Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:13:04 GMT
Viewed: 
953 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:

Meaning I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover of another
debate (which it seems to be).

Which debate, though?  The one about West Wing, the one about quotations and
their merit, or the one about the second amendment?

Again, I thought John Leo's opinion of  "The West Wing" was a totally new
debate topic on The West Wing and how the West Wing was not an accurate
represenation of the workings of politics and the White House.


I expect you could steer the threadlette in the direction you wanted it to go.
But you would have to deal with the interconnectedness of all these
conversations.  I don't know how regularly you read .debate, your posting is
pretty sporadic (like, what...once a year? :-)

Probably about once or twice a year, a topic will grab my attention.

But this got me thinking, I
wonder how hard it is for someone to "break in" to this group when we regulars
have so much ambient knowledge about one another and the previous and ongoing
debate topics.

Chris

Exactly why I was trying to avoid joining a debate in progress.  The responses
to my post clearly show that the "regulars" knew it was on ongoing debate with
a new subject header.  I clearly did not, until I read those responses.  Which
is when I stated that "I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover
of another debate (which it seems to be)."

Unfortunately, in my case, because I am not a "Regular", I was called a "flyby."

The validity of quoting someone else is not something I am interested in
debating at all.  To me, the value of the words are infinitely more important
than who did or did not say them.  Arguing the validity of the words of a
misattributed quote is symantics for arguments sake alone, which I am not
interested in.  You might as well debate LEGO vs. LEGOs (and please don't).



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
 
(...) Actually, if I may clarify--this was a new debate about TWW and the validity of using cites from the show--Larry pointed out that in his opinion, any cite from TWW will carry no water with him. That was this particular debate drew in issues (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
 
(...) Arguing the validity of the words of a (...) BTW, you didn't ask, but the main reason that I dont't post more to debate is that most of these debates end up spending most of their life argueing over the validity or quotes, sources, statements, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
 
(...) Which debate, though? The one about West Wing, the one about quotations and their merit, or the one about the second amendment? I expect you could steer the threadlette in the direction you wanted it to go. But you would have to deal with the (...) (22 years ago, 6-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR