RB Scott wrote:
To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage,
yet you insist that I do.  Not once have I written that I condone
homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do.

I think I see a possible source of misunderstanding here, Ron. Instead of saying, "...not once have a written that I favor gay marriage, yet you insist that I do," why not say, I am opposed to gay marriage, yet you insist that I am not?" Instead of saying, "Not once have I written that I condone homosexual activities," why not say, "I don't condone homosexual activities?"

It seems to me that you typically talk around a topic instead of getting to the thesis sentence. Instead of taking a position and then defending it, you speak in hypotheticals and as a result you come across as evasive, and unwilling to be pinned down on your own position.

It is probably just a difference in the way we communicate. But it leads to misunderstanding.

Do you remember Gordon Banks? The man was brilliant in debate. His chief tactic was to never make a positive statement but to mercilessly attack the positive statements of others. In other words, he was all rebuttal with no statement. Also, he would usually write super short posts of one or two lines making it very difficult to shoot him down because he presented such a small target.

I used to try to pin him down on his own feelings and opinions, but it was almost impossible. He was a master at answering questions with questions, and changing the subject to avoid saying anything that somebody could argue with. After all, his job was to shoot down the arguments of others, not vice versa.

I finally got so frustrated trying to get him to take a stand, that I resorted to taking stands for him and attributing them to him. The tactic worked once in a while. If the words I put in his mouth were far enough off the mark, he would occasionally actually tell us what he really thought. But it annoyed him and was like pulling teeth for me.

Have you ever noticed how the Democratic Party platform usually has a lot of ambiguous, self-contradictory rhetoric in it? Almost every assertion or statement is cancelled out by some other assertion or statement elsewhere in the document. If a writer is vague or ambiguous enough, it is almost impossible to prove him wrong because he hasn't really said anything.

I think that a lot of us misunderstand your posts because you don't come right out and say what you mean. We end up assigning meanings, and invariably we get it wrong.

For an example, you have repeatedly said that you believe that the law under the Constitution ought to guarantee equal rights. Well, duh. I have never met anyone who consciously felt that the law should discriminate and persecute various minorities. But what do you really mean when you say it? Does that mean that you think that homosexuals should be able to marry? Or does it mean that you think that people who oppose same sex marriage are Neanderthals trying to hijack the Constitution to pursue their own agenda? What? How can we talk around this for so long and still remain ignorant about where you stand?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have been clear, and I'm just muddled in my understanding. But from where I sit, a lot of your discourse seems to talk around the topic without ever really stating your position. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand your otherwise lucent prose.

"I know of nothing in the history of the Church or in the
history of the world to compare with our present
circumstances. Nothing happened in Sodom and
Gomorrah which exceeds the wickedness and depravity
which surrounds us now." --President Boyd K. Packer,
February 28, 2004
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to