Matt said:
Well, that is the purpose of recontextualization. ...always wading out onto
ground you and not someone else has prepared. That's why Dave has for years
said I've been indirect: because I used always to say variations of, "if I let
you have these terms, I lose, so here are some new terms...." The problem, as
Dave notes with the cringe in his response in this thread, is that he feels the
deck is stacked my way when I say stuff. Naturally, of course, just as it is
for him.
dmb says:
The framing is always negotiable, just like any other part of the argument.
That's not a problem.
But IF you're just changing the subject because you might have to concede a
point or two, well that's something different altogether. That's not kosher or
legit, not one bit.
I mean, IF my the meaning of my terms evaporate when they're
"recontextualized", then the ideas have not been refined or qualified. They've
simply been pushed off the table. That is also very uncool and unkosher.
So feel free to re-frame. One has to be honest and fair when translating the
other guy's terms. It can only work if they are translated well. Otherwise it's
not really a re-framing of the issue. It's just changing the subject to avoid
the issue.
Don't you think?
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/md/archives.html
