Patrick wrote:
> I'm just trying to have fun here; liven up
discussions about books
> and movies I love.
This is already a pretty lively list. Always has been. Even
without people trying to cynically "liven up" things with
deliberately contentious opinions based on incorrect facts
and deliberate misinterpretations.
Sorry it's not "fun" enough for some people.
> In real life I don't know very many people who are
interested in
> this topic so I value this list. The Right/Wrong
thing though,
> really impedes conversation.
People who don't like "The Right/Wrong thing" should probably
avoid discussion groups entirely, or find one some place
being wrong doesn't matter. Maybe the White House?
> Myself, I have Teflonon ego. Nothing much gets to
me. But I can see
> where normal people might hesitate before posting an
idea they could
> get called down on.
"Normal" people -- those apparently not blessed with a
non-stick protective surface on their brain -- are
nonetheless probably smart enough to expect an opinion to be
challenged on a discussion list, especially if the opinion is
deliberately provocative. They can't have it both ways --
intentionally trying to "liven up" things and then
complaining when they're caught at it and it's pointed out
they're full of shit.
Especially when they boast on their myspace page that they
like to argue.
Jim Doherty's a good example of how to argue. He and I have
tangled plenty over the years, and even he'll admit he likes
to argue. But I've never heard him deliberately argue a point
he didn't honestly and sincerely believe or one not based on
a reasoned and reasonable reading of the material. His
arguments are arrived at honestly and logically, even if we
don't always come to the same conclusion (Jim will gladly
tell you I'm wrong and he's right). I don't always agree with
him, but I respect him. He's done the walk, so he gets to
talk.
He's never, to my knowledge, posited an opinion merely to
"liven up" things. He's too stand up for that.
As for the "Right/Wrong Thing," when I make a factual error,
be it here or on my web site or in my writings, I not only
expect to be corrected -- I welcome it. The only thing being
corrected "impedes" is someone's runaway sense of
self-importance.
> Obviously we point out factual errors and there's no
conversation
> without difference of opinion. But posts filled with
whithering
> delight at someone else's expense; I've certainly
noticed that such
> have slowed these interactions.
Oh, my. Did somebody scratch somebody's "Teflonon ego"?
Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Jun 2008 EDT