From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:56:59 GMT

In <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?
>>
>>       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.

>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.

	Oh, you are supposed to make a person friendly by asking insin-
uative questions?  By using implication and avoiding any positive state-
ment from your side?  I really love the '... discover for themselves that
they are wrong.' part.  This sort of condescending attitude is demeaning and
even more offending than any foul language.

>"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.

	I never SAID the point was to convince anybody.  I said the point
was to get a particular message across.  If I said 'Derek, you sound like
a fucking idiot', I agree that it won't help me convince you of anything.
It would, however, get the idea across that I thought you were a fucking
idiot.

>>       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.
>>

>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?

	As I said, I would use such words as appropriate for the situation.
If I had been bothered by a reporter after my house burned down a couple
of years ago, I would have told them "fuck off, I'm having a bad day", and
I wouldn't have cared if they televised it or what.

>Of course not. You would be more professional with your people communication
>skills, when you are exposed in a professional situation.

	1) this is not a professional situation.  

>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!!

	2) this will never be a profesional situation.
	3) we can even more attract the right kind of people by improving the
	CONTENT of what we post more than the presentation.

>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 thousand of readers will then know exactly how I feel about a
certain position/statement/whatever.  My use of words would help me make
myself abundantly clear.

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

	When did the SI ever publish the idiocy seen in this group?

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

	You actually are making some sense.  However, you are forgetting that
1) this is an open forum of discussion, NOT a scientific conference, and
2) language is a very powerful tool, and many people intend to use as much
of it however necessary to get there point across, and 3) repetitive asking
of insinuative questions is something I find insulting and annoying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15496 alt.culture.usenet:744