Hi Steve, I'm curious about your last paragraph.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that Russ was righteously trying to get Nick to "nail down" a > couple of words or concepts which Nick (also righteously) avoided as to do > so would very likely disturb the real point he was trying to make. > I will acknowledge that sometimes one makes a point by acting in a certain way rather than by speaking directly. I find it frustrating, though, when someone attempts to make a point to me by refusing to be clear about terms but not acknowledging doing that. It would seem much simpler (and less frustrating for me) simply to say that certain terms cannot be defined precisely than to act as if one were being clear but intentionally being unclear. In saying the preceding, I'm not criticizing Nick. He and I have been around the bush too many times to start again. But I am interested in your point. Do you really want to be treated as I described? I don't. I take it as a basic value to be as clear as possible as much as possible and to be clear that one is not being clear when that is the case. Having written that I can think of situations (e.g., negotiations) when a dollop of ambiguity helps. But I think that's a different situation. -- Russ
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
