I don't read the matter as taking sides. What sides?
What is to be gained or lost? Is this a football match?
No. It is a matter of verbal entertainment.

People will please themselves as they will.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Niecko
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 6/28/03 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Eden

Indeed, it HAS occurred to Jacek, even before he sent his comments, that
the moronic context in which all this occurs, to have "Jacek" on your
must be much, much worse than being pursued by a LOT of enemies.

But, then, life is what it is, and the so-called Eliot list is neither
nor there (fortunately)..

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Carless" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Eden

> Without wishing to become embroiled in (another) flame war:
> >If you disagree that your argument is a strawman
> >one then fine, show it.
> Although I feel that Peter - unlike, say, Jacek or Kate - isn't
> to simply provoke argument, isn't "trolling" as such - I do feel that
> tone of his remarks can often have that effect.  He may have a point
> Nancy and Carrol often make strong arguments - but I think that that's
> because they have strong conviction in what they have to say.
> this with Peter's remarks, which most often waver hither and thither
> exhibit a very postmodern[1] (and, to my mind, very wrong) impression
> there can be no "right" or "wrong" answers or approaches to, well,
> anything.  And I think it's incumbent on Peter, if he believes certain
> arguments to be strawman, to demonstrate them as such, rather than for
> original poster to prove otherwise.  It's a cowardly approach to
> "you are wrong" or "your argument is facile" without providing any
> rationale behind your assertion - and it's certainly a strange
> one who apparently abhors absolutist arguments.
> And it's not a matter of having a right to disagree with one another -
> perhaps a modicum of respect might be demonstrated?  Though I'm sure
> sees his remarks as being good-natured and in the spirit of 'academic
> banter', I still feel (as a relative newcomer to this list) that they
> often seem inflammatory - mostly because they're so often lacking in
> substance.  If you disagree with what someone has to say, then please
> explain what you disagree with, and let your arguments stand on their
> merits - without all of the needling and guffawing about particular
> styles.  I've disagreed with Nancy in the past, and had fairly lengthy
> discussions with her off-list, and never found her to be anything but
> courteous even in disagreement.  And I think that Peter might want to
> about the fact that, if nothing else, Jacek keeps on jumping to his
> - that should be enough to lead anyone to question the  way in which
> they're coming across to the rest of the list.
> Oh, and a little trimming of quoted replies would be nice, too...
> Regards,
> --George
> [1] I'm in my twenties, so I claim a right to bandy about the term.