DMB, your "complaint" was to describe my - skirting round an important issues, whilst talking about another - as "drivel".
Like you I'd be happier with constructive argument, rather than offensiive rhetoric. Feel free to discuss "isms" with anyone you like - I am not in your way. I'm just saying that I will find it difficult to take dicsussion of this serious "governance" discussion worthwhile enough for me to contribute, until we can separate the socially conditioned language of the isms from their intellectual content. I'm trying to claer the way for me. But it need be no obstacle to you .... unless this is some back-handed flattery that says you don't want to discuss it without me ;-) Anyway we know what each other's buttons are. I've had enough of this "meta-discussion" I want to get to the main event too. Ian On 7/17/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian said to dmb: > Sorry if my trying to achieve constructive arguments makes you mad. > > dmb says: > I keep complaining that you are skirting the issue, that your contributions > are confusing and unhelpful. I'd welcome "constructive arguments" with open > arms. I'm practically begging you for "constructive arguments", begging you > to address the quotes and ideas from LILA. You're making me crazy precisely > because I don't see anything constructive at all. Your arguments are full of > skirting, equivocation and contradiction. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend > to "respect" that. If there is some reason that you think my complaints are > not valid (other than the fact that its not particularly nice) then you're > perfectly free to explain that. > > I realize that nobody wants to be criticized and I understand how such things > can sting the ego but that is simply not enough to cause me to censor myself. > These criticisms are aimed at what you post, what you say, not who you are. > Sorry, but if the things you say don't make any sense, I should be allowed to > complain about it and offer alternatives. Isn't that just the nature of a > philosophical discussion group? Like I've said before, if you wanna swim > you're gonna have to get wet. If that attitude makes me look arrogant, well > that's just the price I have to pay. > > dmb said previously: > Look, I'm trying to be civil and I'm trying to stick to the relevant quotes > and ideas. I'm trying to avoid using words like "drivel" but look at what > you're saying here. You admit that you're at least temporarily unwilling to > discuss isms in the first sentence and then admit in the second sentence that > such a stance is "merely skirting around the issues". What is the point of > temporarily skirting the issues? Your attempts to hold both positions at the > same time isn't diplomatic or balanced. Its just contradictory non-sense. And > speaking of skirting around things, why are you not addressing the content of > my remarks, the quotes I pulled and the case I made? > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! > http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
