From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:28:05 GMT

In <1992Aug31.013048.1836@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

[ lot's o' deletions about Dan Ashlock's use of strong language when he feels
a discussion is getting nowhere.]

>[deletions]

>>> >> (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.

>Sure. And when they hit their big thumb with a nail, they reactr like any
>other human. 

	Trust me, they do. :)

>              However, scientific debate is different. When Dan
>degenerates it into a "name calling" session it ceases to be scientific
>debate.

	Dan usually does not 'degenerate' into name calling until AFTER the
debate has ceased to become scientific.  

>>       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.

>Failed, in *his* opinion. And anyone's use of reason is not perfect.

>>Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>someone else where reason has failed.

>Exactly. Dan did you get that?

	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.

>>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.

>Sure. But when did voluable==denegerate language???

	When someone comes on the net and posts large volume of specious
nonsense, supported by no logical thread, or refuses to support it at all,
this is almost the accepted norm and waved off by everyone.
	When someone else calls this specious nonsense for what it is, and
lets a single 'fuck' out in the processes, this is rudeness incarnate and
an attempt at censorship or other such nonsense.
	In other words, the form of the message becomes much more important
than the content, a form of intellectual bankruptcy.  (Since I'll probably
be getting flamed anyway, I'm going to be damn sure it's worth it :-)
While I am not trying to advocate the use of foul language on the net, I
do believe (in the words of Clarence Darrow) "language is a poor enough form
of communication, we should use all of the words we got" (from "Inherit
the Wind").  Since it seems that the offense I take at someone else's 
poor use of reason and logic, which is "just *my* opinion", is secondary to
the offense someone else take at my use of language in expressing my opinion
about this, even though "no one's use of langauge is perfect" either, we have 
what seems to be double standard here.
	I use the words I do to try and get a particular message across.
I will use whatever words I feel necessary to do this.  Words like 'fuck'
and 'goddamn' and 'shithead' have a highly emotional content.  Thus I
occaisionally use them when I believe such is called for.  While such
language may be unnecessary in a rational debate, they are useful in express-
ing ones feelings about something, or in a debate that has gone past (or never
was) rational.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy   I'm Bart Simpson.
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University            Who the hell are you?
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15183 talk.origins:10206