I am really enjoying this exchange with you. However it is really starting
to take up way too much of my time. But if you are interested in debating
this thing to the bitter end, so am I. If you are interested, I would
invite you to participate in a formal debate of this issue. By "formal" I
only mean that it would be subject to certain minimal rules.
I would suggest that, since I am offering a hypothesis and you are basically
arguing against it, I will post a general statement setting forth the main
points of my proposal. Your initial rebuttal should consist your response
to my proposal, containing your alternative suggestion (if you have one) and
a list of reasons (rebuttal points) why you think my proposal is for the
Then we could go to town debating back and forth, one rebuttal point at a
time, until we have hashed this thing all the way out. You seem to be
reasonable and you state your opinions intelligently. I like to think that
I'm occasionally somewhat reasonable myself. The two of us just might be
able to reach some consensus on this.
But I can't continue doing it the way we have for the past few days. Me
responding to your 4 or 5 posts, which leads to another 4 or 5 posts, which
leads to another 4 or 5 posts. Its just too time consuming. This way we
could also cut down a bit on the traffic to the list.
If you're interested in a "formal" debate on these terms let me know. If
you would like to change any of the proposed ground rules I'm open to that
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:48 MDT