From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:00:32 -0000
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I never said that, did I? > > > (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials > > > was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. > > > You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an > > > intellectual, and don't worry about proving yourcredentials...) > > > > Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an adhominem > > attack. Kettle? Black? > > Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, > advice on how to look better in the future. Information on howDavid > perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David > differently. > > I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains > an ad > hominem attack. > > Julia > > Then again, I'm having a bad week and am short on sleep -- maybe you > could spell it out for me?
Well, I think that I am closer to Jan's reading of the situation than yours, Julia. Namely that I treated David's post as being closer to "an attack" than to being "useful."
<big snip>
Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and end up far more likely just putting them on the defensive rather than making any positive change.
Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place onlist. From experience, people who challenge others offlist are either trying to intimidate them or want to attack them in a manner that would be inappropriate onlist.
It's sad, but I've learned to no longer give the benefit of the doubt.
Likewise, David didn't exactly win any sympathy points from me when he dismissed my claims of having my intellectual bona fides constantly questioned on this List (in ways that the Left-Wingers of this List do not) just one post after he previously wrote:
Hrm. I'm one of the people here who questions the left-wingers. I also question the right-wingers. I'm sure I'm not alone in trying to take a middle of the road stance. I think you're wrong if you think that conservatives are the only ones who ever have to defend their political positions here. Have you noticed people failing to reply to your posts? To Gautams? To Bob Chassell's? I certainly haven't.
To be honest, this sounds like Limbaugh-style rhetoric. 'The Liberals Can't Answer The Tough Questions!' Bull. Sure they can and do. Y'all just don't like the answers they give you. :)
"I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer."
He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
