From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Derek advocates quality. cough. choke.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.011451.27211@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <btd.715231685@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu
(Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>>>Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>>>someone else where reason has failed.
>>
>>>Exactly. Dan did you get that?

   Look, if you can't be bother to read or refute my reasoning on the proper
use of rudeness, could you at least not talk about it?

>>       Dan probably well understands this.  While I can't speak for him,
>>when someone has already shown themselves PAST reasoning and logic I
sometimes
>>resort to this to show my frustration in the matter.
>>
>What he probably doesn't understand is that a situation that has gone PAST
>reasoning & logic, can be turned around to become reasonable again.

   Reality check.  I was speaking with LIONEL TUN.  You know, the guy that has
even more trouble remembering whats going on than you?
 
> The way you do it is by being friendly & polite & and to guide the person
> by asking a series of questions rather than making hurtful statements. So
that
> you win their trust and they discover for themselves that they are wrong.

   Bwahahahahaha.

   I tried to do this _to you_.  Do you recall the result?  In any case:

have-you-found-any-philosophical-or-logical-justification-for-using-extra-
dimensional-superbeings-to-invalidate-quantum-mechanics-yet?

> 
> "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
> 
> I can't remember who said the quote, but it says it all.

   If you are in an isolated two-body system.  Since you haven't noticed yet,
I'll give it away.  Usenet is a multilateral system.  Does that clear up some
of your confusion about why the one person you've been debating all this time
has so many names and opinions?

           [comments on the emotional content of profanity]

> I have no problem with what you do in private. However, is this the way you
> would behave if you were televised on the news? Or reported in the
newspapers?
> Or before a jury in a court? Or questioning a speaker at a conference?

   Maybe.  The answer is context dependent.  Have you been following the US
elections? 
 
> Of course not. You would be more professional with your people communication
> skills, when you are exposed in a professional situation.

   Um, why are you contradicting recently posted counterexamples (e.g. SJ
Gould/sociobiology) without refuting them?  Do you not read the other posts or
is it a neurological problem?
 
> And this is my point, if people want sci.skeptic to look professional and to
> attract the right kind of people then start by cleaning up the language!!

   ...and blow your net node.  Niether is likely.
 
> If you really have to let off steam, then do it in the privacy of email
> and call the guy whatever name you like. But if you do it on line for 
> thousands of readers to see, you are hurting the calibre of the group.

   The black pot speaks.
 
> When did you ever see  the "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine publishing some of
> the expletives that we see in this group?

   Compare Robert Schaffer's posts with his articles in that fine magazine.  I
suspect that the failure of SI to be short-turnaround interactive allows the
politeness.  Also, have you _read_ the letters?  Some of them are pretty sharp.

> Am I making sense or am I from another planet?

   Do I have to choose one?  You're a naive Martian who never does background
work.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic