Well, Daniel, (I know your comments were addressed to Nadia and not to me;
please excuse me for butting in) when you said there was nothing wrong with
stoking the fires of debate, it came across to me as though your main
purpose in entering into the conversation was to manipulate the behavior of
the other parties to the conversation. It's like a put-down, like you're
making fun of them for taking the issues seriously or something. I could
understand why Nadia felt like moving on to some other conversation.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Technotranscendence
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: ART: What Art Is web page is at:
On Monday, May 29, 2000 4:36 PM Nadia QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > Seriously, I figured some of you might want to read more on the book
> > that comments might ensue. I see nothing wrong with wanting to stoke
> > fires of debate.
> If I had known that this was only about a "debate" war to be stoked, I'd
Must have used the wrong word. I was unaware that Nadia assumed debates are
wars that must be won or lost.
> never have taken the time to answer your questions about what the
> of art education were. I thought you were intrerested in my knowledge, but
> now I find it's a one way street where you only want use debate tactics,
> you can -- win win win?
I replied to her questions, agreeing with her on several points. I see by
her above answer that she has locked on to the word "debate" and is now
closed to any further communication. Guess, the myth of Nadia's open mind
is finally shattered. Didn't think my joking comment would be the one to do
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:06 MDT