On Sep 17, 2004, at 8:45 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
[Addressing just a bit of the post]
The general rule of civil discourse that I've always followed is that one
signs off an argument by either not responding, or responding with a "lets
table this message, I'm busy."
It seems to me that that was what you got: An explanation (the call of debate is hard to resist) and a request to let it drop into the background. That's how it looked to me, at any rate.
1) Are we not to differ with him?
I don't think it was the differing; what I saw was JDG taking on a fairly condescending tone which was returned in kind, and then (apparently) a gang-up, three against one. Differing is one thing. That was a lot more like a dogfight.
Had it been my list (that is, if I were the listowner) I would have asked, at one point or another, that those who differed unsub if they were so furious, that or try to keep it civil. I probably would have made that request about two days ago.
2) Are we supposed to always let him have the last word, because he is the
name member of the list?
Is the measure of a reasoned, civilized discourse, to you, only about who gets the last word?
3) Do we need to accept without question any derogatory tones he uses with
people he differs with?
I'm sorry, Dan, but I saw the tone used on him first, solo, and then in two- and three-part harmony. Perhaps others didn't see it happening that way, but *I* was feeling distinctly embattled as a *spectator*.
These are just my takes on things. So much of any of the foregoing is based in opinion that you'll surely get other responses.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" Excerpt at http://www.nightwares.com/books/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
