From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Derek Tops Dan!
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:20:05 GMT
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Aug27.023116.6935@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.101956@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
> >dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug23.101121@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
> >Ashlock) writes:
> >>>   When a person expresses an implausible view,
> >>>   contradicting my knowledge base,
> >>>   and can only defend that view by verbal obfuscation or repitition,
> >>>   which are themselves an act of colossal rudeness,
> >>>   why should I be polite?
> >>
> >> Dan, the simple reason is that politeness is part of civilization's
> >> unwritten code of behaviour.
> >
> >   Yeah.  You can't be bothered to support or retract your views; that's
> >colossally rude: once you've erased civilization in a situation, where is
the
> >suasion on ME to continue it for your benifit?
>                                   ^^^^
>                              It was for your benefit.
> 
> The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
> with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.

	It is not your views that Dan has problems with -- it is your method
of defending them; to wit, not at all.

> >> Breaking that law of etiquette harms the net (and thus yourself
indirectly)
> >> as it puts off most high calibre people from participating in net
> >> discussions.
> >> (As their status would be offended by such immaturity).

	I've gone golfing with quite a few people I consider of high calibre --
scientists and the like.  I don't notice their reaction significantly different
when they slice one off into the woods.

> >   Um, Derek, I don't think _you_ should be calling me on violations of
> >etiquitte.  I'm merely rude.
> 
> Imagine you are in a court of law. You are the accused. You call the
defendant
> by your favorite expletive: s**thead.

	Pardon the fuck out of me, but isn't the defendant == the accused? 
And furthermore, Dan called no one a s**thead; he called (most recently, I
believe) Lionel Tun a shithead.

> You have just lost all your credibility with the jury.

	Um, yeah.

> If you don't beleive me, try it sometime....the outcome will amaze you.

	Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
to use of strong language.  Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
someone else where reason has failed.  On the other hand, on the net where 
silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
ment is often necessary.


'Morals; oh dear, there goes the neighborhood.'  -- Big Al.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins