Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Dan, > > Come on Dan you're better than this. So many straw men in there ... I'll > just unpick the one paragraph. > Dan: Thank you, Ian. I always appreciate such favors. > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Dan: > > What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey > > we who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way > to > > higher quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care > whether > > or not these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? > > > > [IG] Strawman1. Obviously not. (1) We do care a great deal, and (2) so much > that we show that we care by doing MORE than simply criticise them. > Dan: I see you have conveniently excised your comment that I was responding to. Is that you being charitable or is it an effort to pull the wool over my eyes? Ain't gonna work, my friend. Ian, I am asking questions here, not making statements. That's what the '?' punctuation mark means. So what you are saying now is that we shouldn't criticize someone for following a path of low quality. We should do MORE. Like what? Call them names? > > > > > I will for the moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of > > the MOQ than others. > > > [IG] Obviously again. Strawman2 to suggest I would say otherwise. (In fact > I explicitly answered Yes to Jan Anders question on that point.) > Dan: Did I say you said otherwise? And how is this a strawman? Too, again you've deleted your comment I am referring to. This is very frustrating as I have to go back to the original email to see what you said. Why are you doing this? From my vantage point it appears you are trying to throw sand in the bull's eyes. > > > > Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. > > There are experts in certain fields and then there are laypeople who may > > possess adequate knowledge and yet they haven't acquired the ability of > an > > expert who has spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills. > > > > [IG] "Experts honing their skills" - OK, let's examine that. (Below) > > > > > Are you saying the experts here should just shut up and take a more fluid > > integrative approach? > > > > [IG] Strawman3. Shut up AND change their approach? Obviously not, why would > I suggest that ? [Ian] "I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle - particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing "against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. Me vs other. Dan: I am not sure. That's why I asked. Note I have reproduced your comment since you saw fit to delete it. AGAIN. Anyway, you say we ALL share a SOMist language communication problem so it seemed to me you are saying to shut up, to quit using language, particularly if we're going to criticize and argue with someone. Perhaps I am overstating your meaning here. That is why I asked you questions. Again, note the '?' mark. On the other hand, you pull out some arcane 'fluid integrative' term that means what? If you are going to be using such oddball terms at least be charitable enough to define their meaning. And now you accuse me of creating a strawman? Not one, but a bunch? Good grief, Charlie Brown. > I say change their approach and continue the dialogue > (with that changed behaviour). (FYI - Mary Parker-Follett is my main > reference for the "integrative" approach, if anyone is interested.) > Dan: Oh good. At least we have a name to go by. When I googled the term I got references to fluid dynamics and other physics-related sciences. See what happens when you try to sound highfaluting? All you do is add confusion. > > So the worthy point. > Experts honing their skills ? > We must not confuse expertise in one thing (however assessed) with skills > in another. I'll assuming we are talking about expertise in the MoQ, and > skills in arguing about it. > Dan: Huh? ex·per·tise /ˌekspərˈtēz/ Noun Expert skill or knowledge in a particular field: "technical expertise". What is it you are saying? Oh. Expertise and skill. Actually I am talking about expertise and skill in dealing with the MOQ. That should be obvious since we are in a forum dedicated to the MOQ, not to building homes. > > Quite simply - My subject here has been the balance of argumentation skills > and style - aimed at increasing mutual understanding, rather than aimed at > winning and defeating. And, "honing" so gives the game away - that > Aristotelian knife in hand, magic, just magic. > Dan: When did I ever suggest winning and defeating? Come on, Ian. You tell me I can do better but this is, to use dmb's term, drivel. honing 1. Make sharper or more focused or efficient. So how does honing one's skills and expertise give the game away? And who is playing games? Not me. I suspect you are from the gist of this email and I really do not have the time for it. > > When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails - oh hang on, > we've got a quality wrench too, let's use it. David Harding's post > articulates this well. > Dan: Then I would suggest you continue your charitable discussions with Mr. Harding. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
