Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] flame-fest

[Evan Powers]

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 03:13 pm, Tom Lord wrote:
>     >     Tom> I have seen evidence that, intentionally or not,
>     >
>     > And there you go again.  The word "intentionally" clearly implies
>     > ill-intent on my part, but by grammatically making it an arm of a
>     > disjunction, you can deny that you asserted it.
>
> No, I asserted that there is ambiguity on the matter and, by
> implication, that the resolution of that ambiguity is a question worth
> considering.

I mostly sit silent and watch both the technical and philosophical threads on 
this list, but I felt compelled to comment here.

Tom, you realize that you just denied any implications of ill-intent 
immediately after a quote in which Stephen predicts you will deny implying 
ill-intent?

That isn't good. Even if you are right.

Look, a good proportion of third party observers (I would guess the proportion 
exactly equals the proportion of people who think the BK license is okay) are 
going to look at that and think you're behaving dishonestly, Tom.

Note that whether you are or not is irrelevant to that perception.

I would argue that, in most discussions, acknowledging the existence of a 
certain question is effectively identical to asserting a particular answer to 
that question for some proportion of the people listening. (In this case, 
acknowledging that it is possible that Stephen has ill-intent is tantamount 
to accusing him of having ill-intent, for a certain subset of list 
members--of which Stephen is probably a member.)

One may argue that people should be more discerning in their thought processes 
if one wants, but it's rather pointless. I'm willing to make the bold 
assertion that this effect exists in any subset of the human population which 
consists of more than one person. Stephen is guilty of it, Tom is guilty of 
it, I am guilty of it.

Furthermore, even if two people on opposite sides of an issue can acknowledge 
that each other's character might be in question, without mistaking such an 
acknowledgment for an assertion of fact, the risk of misinterpretation 
remains if the discussion group includes a third person (even if that person 
is neutral).

Therefore, I argue that the best way to facilitate smooth and productive 
discourse is to refrain from acknowledging the existence of any question for 
which you are not willing to assert a particular answer.

Rules are made to be broken, of course, especially sweeping generalizations. 
However, I think it is a rule best considered carefully before making any 
contribution to a discussion.

My $0.02.

Evan