Subject:
|
Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:31:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1016 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> 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).
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 and subjects from other threads to either reinforce the
points, or refute points.
So it wasn't a continuing debate, it was a brand new one.
But that's just how I saw it.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
