poli-sci (07/07/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Tue Jul 6 17:17:01 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 7 Jul 82 Volume 2 Number 151
Contents: Part of the Solution (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 July 1982 22:52-EDT
From: Leonard N. Foner <FONER at MIT-AI>
Subject: Bravo!
Kudos to you, Gary, for helping to remind all of us to consider
carefully the \meaning/ of what we say on this list. I for one had
gotten so used to the level of flaming on the list that I didn't
notice it any more; I simply discounted nearly \everything/ I read
unless it was obviously calmly and carefully constructed.
Unfortunately, I fear that too many messages of late have not had the
benefit of a cooling down period before they were sent.
Your message also illustrates one of the benefits of this kind of
discussion, as opposed to one in person. While an in-person argument
may involve lots of banging on the table and so forth, it also has
built-in limiters---people do not so easily call each other names and
generally flame because they feel more that they really are talking to
another person. The benefit of electronic discussion that your
message reveals is the ability to calmly take apart what was said and
analyze it for what is really being said, with adequate
documentation---there can be no doubt at all as to what was actually
\said/, only to the \meaning/... and that can be carefully dissected.
In any event, thank you for a message that seems to be appropriate for
dealing with the kind of strong feelings that have been stirred up.
And, as a final comment, I am at this moment wearing a T-shirt with a
little man sitting in the bottom of a beaker filled with some liquid,
with the legend, "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part
of the precipitate." I think that sums up my position on the whole
"if not for me then against me" situation pretty well.
Have fun all. Let's not have to keep getting the fire extinguishers
every time people discuss something.
<LNF>
------------------------------
Date: 6-Jul-82 12:06:03 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
The fact that I have remained silent for weeks of Poli-Sci discussions
on various issues does not in any way describe my agreement or
disagreement with the opinions therein expressed.
Lamson's argument only applies in a case where someone is specifically
required to provide a disagreement and refuses. This is not always the
case, and in particular, is not the case in the example he cites.
Salamin leaves out a fifth case: (5) the silent person is asleep.
In response to Breslau's comment on voting rights:
'The right not to vote should be as well-respected as the right to vote'.
I believe that every item on the ballot should have a no preference
option. Then the right not to vote is explicitly defined for every
issue, and there is no longer any need to stay out of the electoral
process in order to express dissatisfaction with the candidates or
issues.
-- Larry --
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------