Re: Transparency Debate

From: Dan Fabulich (
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000 - 03:05:07 MST

'What is your name?' 'Zero Powers.' 'Do you deny having written the

> I am really enjoying this exchange with you. However it is really starting
> to take up way too much of my time.

Hah. I knew you'd cave eventually. ;)
> 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
> too.

<shrug> The structure of Internet quotation, I find, makes debate look
much like the "formal" debate w/out numbering your points. One usually
responds paragraph by paragraph or section by section, but rather it is
the rebuttal post, not the affirmative argument, which decides where those
sections are delineated. I don't take this to be an important difference,

So, as far as I can tell, this proposal looks just like the debate we've
been having, only we number our paragraphs. I have no strong feelings
about the merits of this, though I must admit that it seems like it might
be a waste of time. It'll only cut down on the "I answered this in my
last post" bits, which probably won't help you save very much in the long

Rather, the best way to make this debate (or any other) take up less of
your life is to reply less often. You'll notice I didn't reply at all
today, since I've got an exam I need to study for tomorrow. I probably
won't have any kind of a substantial response until the weekend. Just
waiting a day or two before responding can do wonders for one's schedule,
and is more likely to have a positive effect than "formalizing" the


      -unless you love someone-
    -nothing else makes any sense-
           e.e. cummings

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:49 MDT