dmb, What I did was wrong, and I apologize to you and Steve.
Marsha On Jul 29, 2011, at 11:16 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > Ian said to Matt: > ...(4) Once we have open accusations of motivated deliberate (weasely) > misrepresentation, we have that topic on the table ... and I simply believe > it is worth pausing to fix the lost trust, before returning to the > contentious point(s). I do accuse dmb of not taking this point seriously - ... > > After Matt had said: > "Straw men have nothing to do with sincerity. The trouble is that accusing > others of _deploying one as a trick_ implies that they are knowingly being > malicious, are being insincere." ... I would think a straw man is something > built, and usually over time. Can we not get somebody wrong without thereby > building a straw man? ... I still can't help but think that attributions of > the straw-man fallacy create more emotional hay than they do in helping clear > the landscape of misapprehensions (excuse my mixed metaphors). Too many > fires are lit from the remains, which just adds to our heat problem and > obscures our vision. > > > > dmb says: > To say that accusations cause mistrust is a little like saying that arrests > cause crime. I mean, if the accusation is not unfounded, then it is the > straw-man maker that has destroyed trust. It's not accusations of evasion > that causes mistrust, it's the evasive weasel-wordy behavior that destroys > trust. These tactics are not part of an honest or sincere conversation and I > sincerely believe that it is wrong NOT to complain about them. The decent > thing to do when making such a charge, of course, is to be very specific and > explicit about the behavior that's drawing the charge, to show the foundation > of the accusation. That's certainly what I tried to do when I accused Steve > of inventing a straw man. He didn't have to wonder where I got the idea and > he had every opportunity to address the charge in very concrete terms. And > did he make any effort to restore trust or repair the conversation? No. He > just kept creating more fictions with which to abuse me. It seems way out of > whack to > construe my complaints as the problem rather than the antics that drew the > complaints in first place. > > Well, after one of the most outrageous cases (wherein Steve edited things to > make it appear that I was responding to a post from Marsha that I'd never > even seen) he did apologize, sort of. He did not admit to being manipulative > or dishonest, justifying this fancy editing trick with some vague notion > about what he assumed. As an exercise in fair-mindedness imagine the shoe is > on the other foot and Steve was accusing me of exactly the same things for > exactly the same reasons. (Good exercise for party politics too.) What if I > edited Steve's posts to make it look like he was responding to things that he > hadn't read. What if I altered Steve's criticism of Marsha so that it looked > like my criticism of Steve and then accused him of evading the criticism. > Imagine that when Steve complains about it, I do not address his complaints, > I just call him a dick and keep going with it. If I did to Steve what Steve > has been doing to me, you'd be positively apoplectic over it. Marsha's head w ou > ld explode. > > > > > > > > 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 ___ 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
