nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (10/05/84)
A commom senerio: Poster X flails away at his/hers keyboard spewing out retoric that has nothing to do with the truth. Poster Y (a more informed type of person) calmly points out the errors in X's off-the-cuff, rash, and untrue statement. The result: Poster X either ignores the response completely, or starts spewing forth more retoric that has nothing to do with his/hers original mistake. Now, part of the problem is that very few people really know the truth (first hand) about the nuclear situation, Central America, the Middle East, etc. Componding the problem: people who take a stand, then go looking for proof that their stand is correct (therefore all others are false), people who repeat the retoric over and over agin until they swear that the reality in front of them is an illusion, and those who sit in the background, deafly listening to the discussion, never lifting their hands to utter a word (net.land talking), never speaking what is on their minds so no one (including themselves) will know if what they think is truthful or not, fearing that they will have to alter their outlook to fit the real world. Why am I typeing this. Because I could use one of the above definitions to discribe my behavior at times. But I try, ferverently to avoid these traps that strangle my intelligance. I urge others to do the same. Admit you can be wrong. Admit that no one has all the facts. Try thinking as apposed to reacting. Remember, most of us are only human, and as a species we still have a long wat to go. Thanks, Bruce Golub John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
keller@uicsl.UUCP (10/11/84)
[for emergency use only] I was away from net.politics for a month and upon my return I had the unfortunate impulse to read all of the months entries--the result: my brain hurts! To give you the feeling of revulsion I have I liken it to watching Ron Reagan fumble around trying to say something coherent during the first "debate." Now, I don't think that net.politics is unique among notesfiles by being full of entries that bespeak a lack of knowledge. Nor do I believe that the participants are dull witted. What I do believe is that most of the users don't know that they are very poorly informed. Part of the reason that I believe this is that shortly after I made my first entries in net.politics I received a tremendous amount of criticism about what I had said and I found that I needed to think quite a bit harder about what I was going to say if I ever made another entry. I have continued to make entries some of which I am proud of and some of which I wonder whether I should have made (it is very hard not to start flaming away about politics). But believe me when I tell you that spouting an opinion without having several good sources to back you up is worse than wasted breath. This brings me to the topic of news sources. I remember a debate I participated in where the opponents sole source was Newsweek. I thought that was the pinnacle of narrow-mindedness, but the debate judge didn't seem too upset by it. If you have been following net.politics for a while you have heard of several cases of creative editing of stories in the major news magazines and papers. This doesn't mean that you can never trust what you read only that you shouldn't be surprised to find someone who tells you a completely different story (especially about foreign affairs). My friend Jordan thinks that there is nothing true ever printed in the National Review, but he is wrong just as one cannot claim that an liberal magazine is always full of junk. I have found that if you want to get close to the truth you have to find several good books and read them; it just requires more effort to write books than articles so they tend to be better. If any of you think that TV news can inform you on any substantial topic then I want you to read this quote: "I don't think anyone can get anything--enough information about anything--out of television to make a full, informed judgement." Tom Brokaw (NBC) -Shaun
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (10/12/84)
> ... Remember, most of us are only human, and as a species we still > have a long wat to go. Longer than we at first thought.