From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Self doubt?  I doubt it.
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.082207@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.161201.24933@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
>kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>>It could be that you are motivated by self doubt in your own beliefs, and
>>that is why you protest so vehemently.
>
>   Yeah, it could be, but it isn't.  Take for example the issue of information
>channles outside currently accepted physics.  You and Rodger Nelson are both
>interested in this stuff.  I flame you, I don't flame him.  Heck, I'm even
>reading his work (a review will appear someday; his stuff is nontrivial).  The
>difference is that he is attacking the idea rationally while you appear to be
>blinded by a need to believe.  Your statment last year about the general
>lack of importance, to you, of laboratory verification of this sort of 
>phenomena is what clued me in.
>
>   Far from having an emotional investment in the current list of infomation
>channles I would be thrilled to find new ones.  Remote viewing, retro- and pre-
>cognition, an ansible; all these would be wonderful additions to humanities
>toolbox.

No need to defend yourself Dan, I believe you.
 
>> Are you sure that flaming really is the way to prevent this? Could it be that
>> it only alienates people from your viewpoint instead of winning them over?
>
>   We've been over this ground before, Dave.  The lurkers.  Never forget the
>lurkers.  In addition I'm not trying to "win" people to my viewpoint.  It is
>left as an exercise to the student to figure out what other valuable effects 
>flaming could have besides "winning people over".  Does it force people to
>attempt to defend their own views?  What effect could this have?  Besides,
>I am (in principle) against flaming _first_.  No first use is a wonderful
>position.

You didn't reply to my assertion that true debate should involve attacks
on a person's logic, not the person. Personal attack is lazy.

>> Ignoring someone can do wonders. Unless of course there is too much personal
>> ego involved in winning the argument. We all fall into that trap.
>
>   Ah, but I do!  I have not attacked one piece of falacious reasoning in the
>JFK thread, have I?

Good job! Are you sure it wasn't time limitations or lack of interest.

>>First of all I had way more positive comments on my .sig than negative,
>>so you were in the minority.
>
>   Let's see.  Dave Krauss is making an assertion that supports his ego
>and I have no way of checking it.  The assertion tends to support the
>notion that people liked Dave's .sig and by implication Dave.  He hasn't
>even attempted to figure out the probability of someone who thought his
>.sig was neat writing him as opposed to someone who thought it was stupid.
>In my experience supportive comments are more frequent by about 6:1 than
>derisive ones.
>
>   Conclusion:  Dave's childish inability to even consider objective means 
>of supporting or rejecting a hypothisis is firmly in place.
>
>   Action:  Follow Dave's advice and ignore it.

And Dan couldn't ignore it, because he had to support his ego by making
an assertion (supportive over derisive by 6 to 1) that I have no way
of checking. Boy Dan maybe we are more alike than you thought. Maybe the
net should ignore both of us.

Sorry, I couldn't ignore, I am imperfect, ......must sterrriilliiiizze....
.......bammm!!!!!
 



---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------