----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:40 AM Subject: Re: Lurkers afraid of flames?
> Doug wrote: > > If a listmember repeatedly makes the same, unsubstantiated claim, > > then a request for source material is appropriate, but a lot of what > > we do on list is the written equivalent of verbal conversation. > > When you are having a conversation with someone, you don't expect to > > have to be able to provide sources every time you try to make a point. > > Yeah, but that's often what is demanded, expectations aside. I don't see what I want as quite that demanding. I realize that I often use data to back up my points, and have implicitly expected that contrary opinions also be backed up by either a reanalysis of my data or by other data. However, I think that's just part of the nature of debating. If I'm arguing economics with JDG and he says that the growth in the economy shows that Reagan put the nation back on track, then the GDP data is very relevant to my point. I don't see the point in arguing it back and forth without getting the numbers that are available. If someone offers a fresh opinion on a subject, and I respond with my opinion and data to back that up, then I don't see myself as demanding they argue like I do, just that I'm being myself. This idea leads to two more points. First of all, IMHO, if we are going to have an enlightened debate/discussion about something in the world, then facts will probably be well worth bringing in. I may wander off into a philosophical debate with Marvin, and that will probably be less fact based. If we do not consider facts, if we do not examine our own analysis of the situation, then what is done besides an exchange of pre-set ideas and opinions? The second is the perceived difficulty in finding the data. I'll give one example from my discussions with Jeroen. He said that he was sure the Oslo accords did not say something. Well, it took two clicks to get the accords. Why not take 5 minutes to read what one is posting on before writing a post in ignorance? And, in doing so, one can educate others too. If we all do that, then we all benefit by having a much better understanding of many situations? Is finding information really that much easier for me than others? Maybe I have unusal skills in internet searches, but I can usually find what I need with a bit of poking around. I dunno. In the case where I upset you, I and Gautam had written 5-6 posts on the subject, in the parent thread of the post you responded to. I admit that seeing a post that ignored several posts that I thought were fairly clear bugged me. I thought of reposting the conventions, but I didn't want to waste bandwidth, and decided to ask pointed questions instead. I'm sorry if you though that was rude, but I meant no more than for you to go back and read my quotation of the convention and think about what it meant. The final thing is language choice. I think part of it is my training in that area. Look at my post on Pern, as an example. I said I heard something. I didn't state it was a fact. Yes, I'm embarrassed that I misremembered, but I'm happy to have it corrected. When I know I'm not on solid ground, I often say "I guess." Or, it appears to me. That tends to invite polite correction. But your statement that, and this is from memory, the government needs to decide if this is a war or not, sounded to my ear like someone who was perfectly sure of their position. Does this make sense to you? Is there some way we can all come to an agreement/understanding that doesn't stifle any of us? Dan M.
