Thanks, Dale, for demonstrating the appropriate procedure for productive
discussion. We can agree on procedure even if we disagree greatly on
substance. I don't mind (actually, I like) sharp pointed, witty, and
withering, but hey howzabout we quit with the ad hominem, already? Are we
friends or not?
At 09:01 AM 6/5/00 -0500, Wilson, Dale wrote:
> > At this time several people seem to think Mr. London out of
> > line with his rather pointed criticism of Mr. Groff...
>Ad hominum attack is inappropriate, the refuge of those who don't have
>anything convincing to say.
> > Apparently they failed to notice the 75 times when Mr. London
> > and others refrained from saying "why don't you shut up already?"
> > in response to persistent, unnecessary, unsolicited low-level
> > general insults to organic positions.
>There are some ideas (as opposed to people) that should be confronted and
>exposed. Organic extremism has distinctive philosophical roots that are not
>primarily ethical in nature. I think the proponents are mistaken.
> > I felt uncomfortable about the tolerance of this forum for an
> > organic standards discussion mostly due to the continuing
> > disparaging comments of Mr. Groff, which go mostly unchallenged.
>Steve has disagreed with many of the extreme positions expressed here, but I
>haven't seen any personal attacks from him.
> > Does anybody have the courage to actually either agree
> > or disagree?
>You bet! IMO the important thing is to drill down to real issues, not
>simply "express irritation."
> > Avoiding all conflict, in particular over which version of
> > "sustainable" is the one being used, will lead nowhere.
>I agree totally.
> > I recommend defining certain terms such that they are internally
> > consistent withing a given thread....It is my operating hypothesis
> > that, when an individual refuses to define terms or commit to a
> > position personally, that genuine communication is not that
> > person's goal.
>Very true, but some things are pretty hard to pin down, like the meaning of
> > Anyone too lazy or gutless to follow through with a specific
> > discussion with a specific person, using quoted text, is not
> > making a point or building a bridge.
>Yeah, and it is easy to do in this medium. Just clip out the main points of
>what someone said and respond to what was said, not to the image you have of
>the person (that is likely to be erroneous anyway).
>To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:38 EDT