janw@inmet.UUCP (11/30/85)
The following piece is non-polemical (though prompted by polemics). Just sharing the ground rules *I* [try to] follow. Fit to print ? Fact you're sure of ? YES Fact you're unsure of ? Yes, but say so. Fact that's only part of the truth ? That's ridiculous. No posting tells *all* the truth. Supply extra parts when you have time; or let others do it. A fact is a fact. YES "Fact" that supports your position NO and has a source - but you yourself don't believe it ? Unbalanced fact ? Do not deliberately make it so. But balance is not in one posting. Unpopular fact ? Hurry! It restores the much needed balance. YES Dangerous fact ? Ha-ha . YES Facts with or without As you like. conclusions ? Fact coached in evocative or All language is. Matter of taste. allusive language ? YES Opinion ? YES Unsubstantiated opinion ? Something substantiated it to you if you hold it. YES Opinion disguised as fact ? NO Does it matter how you arrived To you, sure. Your private business. at the opinion? Shouldn't you share that process? Up to you. Could make your opinion more convincing. What about "intellectual honesty" ? Seems like I brought that phrase to the net (in a reply to Gary Samuelson). Everyone should strive for it - but it is *essentially* private. No one can monitor or police it in others. Personal remarks ? Matter of taste - but better keep them few. Positive ones are more conducive to discussion of issues. Flames proliferate and drown the issues out. Second-guessing other folks' mental processes is especially dangerous. Thought is private. Critique of other posters' arguments ? YES Critique of other posters' motives ? NO Argument in favor of your YES position which is convincing to you ? Argument which is NOT NO convincing to you but may impress others ? A good argument in favor of Up to you - but not a bad idea. *opposing view* ? Party spirit corrupts. Questions ? I should post more of them.
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/05/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 30-NOV-1985 05:15--------------------- I agree with what this article had to say but I would like to add something to it. How about if you disagree with how someone argues a point bring it up with that person rather then making the net read the argument. I may be the only one but I find it a little boring to read about how someone is not arguing fairly. I believe the people on the net are intelligent enough that if someone is arguing the wrong way the will recognize it. Lets argue about politics and not about semantics of arguing. Brian Mahoney "Is this the room for an argument?"