--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anon_astute_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > So there's more to it than pointing out the > > > shortcomings of any one particular individual. Too > > > many people simply accept what they read and hear > > > without applying critical thinking. > > > > How do you know? That presumes that silence is acquiesence. Not all > > feel or respond that way. An alternative view is that "responders > > took the bait". > > First, I'm speaking generally here. I hardly think > this country would be in the horrendous mess it's > in today if a majority of people had employed critical > thinking when they elected Bush and a Republican Congress.
Quite a disconnect. I did not suggest abaondoning critical thinking. But perhaps you are just making an independent point. > Those of us who *were* thinking critically appear to > have been right on the money when they predicted what > would happen. > The complicity of the media and the cowardice of > the Democrats in allowing Republican lies to go > unchallenged--even to this day--has been a major > factor in getting us where we are. I suppose some not employing critcal thinking might think the implcation of what you are saying is that those who do not engage people who clearly distort and twist things on FFL and in daily responsible are for Bush and Iraq. So many silly things are said by so many people in so many areas of life. Some are worhty of response, some are not. Instead of rsponding to all of them, I believe picking ones battles is a key to effectivness. > > It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that some posters > > respond to phantoms -- words that are not there, ideas not > > presented. > > You bet. We had a sterling example of that very > situation in Sal's imputing to me "annoyance" with > reporters' questions to MMY about the Beatles, among > a number of such phantoms. Yet others here have quoted > and supported her fantastical diatribes repeatedly. Ah, and such an important world shaking issue to spend finite time and atention on. > > Either via deviousness or deep clumsiness, they create ghost post > > worlds and respond to them. Whether one cares to reply to or comment > > on such silliness is another matter. > > Why do we tolerate the participation of such people > on this forum, though? Tolerate,tolerate,tolerate. Such an interesting concept or frame. To me, its a false dichotomy: to tolerate or not tolerate. The dichotomy supposes there is an itch and one must either endure it, or scratch it. I find no itch. I see some silly people, either clumsy or clever (a la devious), either seeking atention or simple a shallow brook -- bubbling away when shallow waters find rocks in their path. Responding to such, while entertaining at times, simply feeds the seed. It gives attention, acknowledgement and credence to silliness. As if they had a real point of substance. If one has a point of substance to make, and to do so, must point out the shallowness or twisted nature of a poster's comments, ok then. But if the sole point is "this person is silly" -- why waste breath on the obvious. "And what about those to whom it is not obvious?", you ask. Then they, are either silly and will not get it -- no matter how hard you elucidate -- or are in a temporary lapse -- and will wake up momentarily by their own wits. >How many posts have you read > denouncing MMY and the TMO for purported deception, > while posters here regularly mangle the truth with > no sanctions? And jumping into the pit of sand that such posters can't dig out of will help ? > > > > > There's also an underlying sense--which may or may > > > > > not be accurate but does have some influence on how > > > > > people see things--that if one doesn't rebut something > > > > > someone else has said, it's because one doesn't *have* > > > > > a rebuttal, that silence constitutes acquiescence, and > > > > > that what the person has said must be accurate. > > > > Why would one ever presume that? Quite a different mind set than > > mine. > > Quite possibly different than yours, or at least > different than you're willing to recognize. I think > at least some of this presumption may be subconscious. > > > In some if not many caess, silence is the most powerful statement. > > It implies the post is not worthy of a response. Its a snub. > > That may be what it's intended to imply. The question is > whether that is always what is inferred. And you can always be the football of someone elses values and attention. What matters is ones own view: "is this a matter worthy of response?" If not, why dignify the trivial? How others perceive that (response or non response) is their world, their resposnibility, their limitiation. Why tie ones life to such capricousness, particularly if it stems from silly minds? > > Perhaps rude, but less so than being pulled into the mire with > > someone who has no respect for facts, logic and sincere inquiry. > > You seem to be suggesting a moral equivalency here, > putting the person who exposes the lies on the same > moral level as the person doing the lying. > No, thats not my intent. Its your interpretation. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
