--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Tung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and
> > bobbing from side to side....maru
>
> Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I
> saw a post of yours that had anything worthwile.
By "worthwile" I assume you mean "worth wile". (you left out a space.) Quite
frankly the post for which you only responded to the humor portion above
certainly did display "skill in outwitting" (the Websters on line definition
of "wile".) But of course you would never respond to something that did, you
would have to repost it to do so. [ never mind that, I copied it below]
I could ask if you ever respond with anything other than personal insults. Do
you ever address the issues, or do you just redirect conversations to
unimportant side-effects of the communication process as I did above? Seems I
am not the only one who misspells....
And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't dare kill-file me >on-list<
because you know you might miss something that would make you look silly, and
you have to respond to everything that might with personal insults and
redirection. Sorry, but this is not good debating technique. Because it's
annoying, and more importantly it is too easy for others to come back on you
with your own technique like this. "You talk about worthwhile posts, you
can't even spell worthwhile"
The thing is, I am the one person on this list who is most likely to agree
with your stance on communication style, and aggressiveness. Sad really,
because you can't seem to let go of your ego-based patterns, and view
reality. If you are going to state that content in important and that any
aggressiveness viewed by others "imposed" on your message should not be
considered, then you yourself must give the same benefit to those who's
communication skills lack precision. You must address the intent and not the
medium. After all, that IS what you are asking for.
Since you won't communicate with me off list, I am offering to resolve this
with in a manner that is mutually apologetic.
You agree to address the intent of communication by all, and I will agree to
spend some time considering the true intent before hastily responding.
Both would benefit the list. And our bickering is defiantly not. Do you have
the courage?
How about it Erik?
Jan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> > Why do you think that is?
>
> Good debating technique?
A) Debates are activities to be won or lost. - You claim to not care about
-winning- or -losing- as long as the information is correct.
B) Debates are won or lost not on the correctnes of a position, but on the
abilities of the debaters. - You claim to not care about winning or losing as
long as the -information is correct-.
C) You have contradicted yourself and therefore any arguments made based on
the information you have provided are invalid.
D) It would appear that even if your ~technique~ is good. It is not
sufficient.
Jan
Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing
from side to side....maru
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
