That there have been at least two "exchanges" in the last few months that
have lost some of their productve edge by disintegrating into what I'd
call chest beating & becoming defensive & angry suggests a lot of things
to me, one of which is that given the good of the list as a whole, folks
might consider responding off list if they feel they've been flamed (or
whatever), and that we reserve the list for offering our ideas, our
perspectives so that people think about them first (consider their
possibilities) instead of deleting in disgust due to personal attacks.
I agree with Elizabeth; there are many things I do learn, positions I have
forgotten to overlook (etc.), from people, even when I think they're being
out & out nasty unnecessarily. In other words, why can't folks consider
everyone on the list as someone they might persuade to see things in their
way? If you're at all cognizant of how persuasion can work, you know that
accusing someone doesn't achieve that at all.
So...how about demonstrating some of the rhetorical (ethical!) principles
of argument here? As others have said, isn't this list in service of
something more than ego defense and posturing?
Arlene
