From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 21:07:00 MDT
Hal wrote
> I think our recent terrible failure to achieve anything
> more than name-calling in political debate here demands
> a new approach.
I think that we always achieve more that it at first appears,
as I wrote posted in "What is Accomplished by Debate" last
summer.
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::ORkDNVdF-PEc6-UCsS-AXkI-IW0xARRoJyFA
Damien S. writes
> If you've got a population inclined to name-calling or to paranoid judgements,
> or to throw out conflicting data as flawed and biased (a common feature in
> political arguments since a lot of statistics all around are flawed), I think
> it'd be difficult to make progress.
Yes, the constitution of the actual participants is pretty
important. I'd bet that the popularity of most lists, i.e.
their drawing power, consists of (1) the quality of posts
to be found there and (2) the demeanor of the posters.
(This cuts both ways: some will find extropians too mellow
for their tastes, others may find it too explosive.)
On the other hand, it would be interesting if upon deeper
analysis, different people reflect one's own different moods.
Occasionally, I seem to be in the mood for some very cool
head to actually be excessively analytical, or other poster
to "TELL IT LIKE IT IS"!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 21:16:02 MDT