Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums

From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi) writes:

> And if a certain speaker in a public forum expresses, from the outset,
> that the purpose of a specific discussion is to find shared points of
> agreement - a consensus - then how can you defend adopting an
> intransigent, adversarial posture?
>
> By doing so, not only do you show a lack of respect for the speaker, but
> you undermine the value of the forum itself

Yes, you have shown a lack of respect for David, and you have
undermined the value of the forum; a speaker who disagrees with you
shouldn't be attacked in such a fashion. It should be no surprise to
you that other people frame the entire question differently from
you. Attacking them for that view will get you nowhere.

> Your opinion seems to be that this is a debating forum.  In the absence of
> official documentation (ie. a charter) supporting this view, it is obvious
> that you have made an assumption.

Clue: David has been using the forum since before the Great
Renaming. You have a lot of gall to tell him that he's making
assumptions; he is well-founded if he is doing so, but I don't see
much of a leap here.

-- g

References

A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000