Re: What Insults on the list?

Judy Seigel wrote:
>

> My take on the message was that it was quite valid -- whether or not Ryuji
> is always, sometimes, or never correct, he shouldn't be, at the tender age
> of.... what is it, 13?, 46?, the ultimate arbiter of fact, nor should his
> "findings" (as often as not from a book) be more important than others'
> experiences or even suppositions, as he presents them to be.

I don't have any argument with that, but that point can be better made
by presenting alternative points of view on the issues, not by making
personal remarks to or about other people on the list.

 Nor do I find
> any "nefarious motives" in the declaration, no matter how intently I look.

I wasn't referring specifically to Ray's post here, but making a general
plea for things I'd rather not see on the list.

> I see the remarks, rather, as concern for "the list."
>
> If all those quotes were real.... could they really be? Then it was a
> service to the list to flag the development. In fact what I got offlist
> from another subscriber was (among other less repeatable comments),
> "putting 'respect' above truth is offensive to me."

I'm not sure I follow what's being suggested here; if the suggestion is
that to prefer that people stick to issues rather than making arguments
personal is equivalent to valuing "respect" over truth, I must disagree.
It can hardly be denied that I enjoy a good debate on issues as well as
anyone, and that truth is important to me, but I see no reason for
personal slurs; I don't think they serve any purpose in finding truth
here, any more than in political campaigns.

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this topic, as I think
much if not most of the rancor on the list has been a result of people
taking disagreement on issues to a personal level.
Katharine
Received on Thu Nov 18 22:15:56 2004