arlo, one - that was a process describing critcism very explcitly, indeed recommending it as sound teaching for the novice. two - sure I broke my own (aspirational) rule. so what should you read into that rhetorical choice. more ad-hominen things about ian or .....
ian On 16 Jul 2014 14:54, "ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > In fact I was tempted to respond to this from Arlo .... > > "...As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is "A said B. > A was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead > of B. Here's why C is better." Each step in this progression is subject to > examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as > criticism for another (or all)." > > That this is the problem. > It's all criticism, the cart before the horse. > Nothing before the disagreement. > > [Arlo] > Except, what I wrote is not "criticism" by any stretch of that word. It's > a simple presentation of a process. Could I have been more elaborate? > Perhaps. But I guess I am used to working with people who wouldn't need > this process elaborated upon. Apparently, I was wrong. (Yes, you can count > THAT as "criticism".) > > I am tempted to point out that your reply to this, however, was all > criticism. And you didn't follow your Dennett-steps yourself. > > [Ian] > Criticism is to be used very, very, very, very sparingly, and only after > 1, 2 and 3 are established in the conversation. > > [Arlo] > Do as I say, not as I do, eh? (Count that as a bonus "criticism".) > > > > > 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
