From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Indian cookbooks and some random comments
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:35:09 GMT


Thank-you for the very thoughtful and sincere reply.  I agree with
just about everything you have to say.  Permit me to address
just a few points of a difference in emphasis between us.

Ted Altar Peter Mason writes:
>>Still, I think you are capitulating to the unwarranted rudeness and
>>even hostility that we have seen a FEW of our omnivorous
>>kibitzers lapse into making.  

Peter Mason writes:
>Hmmm.  Yes, I guess that is what I am advocating somewhat.  I don't see
>the point of responding to rudeness and hostility with anything more
>than a simple "you are attacking *me*, not my ideas, and not adding
>anything of use to this group"  The readers of this group are fully
>capable of seeing when a thread degenerates, 

Maybe not always, and when our good readers do observe a degenaration in 
discursive dialogue both participants are sometimes thought to be 
at fault in in fact only one really is to blame.  A "plague on both 
your houses" is not ALWAYS the just and appropriate response.


>and it is the person
>who initiates the rudeness who loses the most credibility.  I hate 
>to think that some of the excellent points made by posters to this 
>group may be dismissed by people when they see an accusation/counter-
>accusation argument develop.  People do react this way.  

I am in general agreement with you on this point.  I would simply 
go a little further and maybe on occasion delineate a little about
the nature of the rudeness, the inappositeness of the remark,
and maybe the faulted logic or incorrect and unsubstantiated
inference behind some assertion.  Nothing wrong with that,
I hope, and maybe it can even serve as useful feedback and 
information to all concerned.


>. . .
>I feel that this generally happens because the 'loser' of a debate tends to
>resort to accusations.  That is when we should stop the discussion with the
>accuser.

Well, maybe not stop immediately until some civil and accurate
feedback about this occurance of attacking the person instead of the
arguments/facts be first point out.  I am not convinced that the
perpetrator of insults is always aware that they have actually
lapsed into this kind of incivility, and if they are, they often
think that such insults are justified.  But you're right, continued
discussion with someone who has resorted to insults is no longer
useful, but curiously when rational feedback is provided to these
folk who have lapsed into incivilities they tend to withdraw on their
own.  At least, I have had occasion to observe this phenomena to my
some of my replies to a rude posting.


>The point I'm making is dealing with more with general attitudes of debate.  I'm not
>trying to 'charge' anyone with anything.  I'm a combatitive vegetarian given the
>proper circumstances.  I combat uninformed points of view and lack of education.
>Not people.  No matter how idiotic and abusive a person is, retaliation does not
>succeed in anything useful.

Good point and I heartly concur.  Hopeful, a careful review of my postings
would show that I have addressed my comments to the specific statements 
made by the person and not to condemn the person as such.  Unfortunately, 
this is not always properly understood.  When I state that a specific
remark is "addleheaded" and I give reasons why this would be the case,
my worthy opponent hastily reads my statement as denoting that he
or she has been called "addleheaded".  All one can do is then patiently 
point out the error of such an imputation.  
B
> . . .
>When I use the word 'intolerant' here, I refer to the inability to
>tolerate groundless insults without responding carefully.  There are
>always going to be 'fundamentalist omnivores' who simply abuse.  But
>I fear if too much of this group is taken up by accusations and 
>counter-accusations, people will be turned off.  Most of the 'lurking
>omnivores' out there have legitimate questions and concerns, as well
>as differing points of view which can stimulate useful discussions here.
>We don't want to alienate them by wasting time responding to insults.
. . .

Good point.  Still, some wasted time might be unavoidably in order to set
the record straight, if not for the perpetrator of the insults at least
for the hapless reader of these insulting postings.
              
                                     ted
 
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg