Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 04.56:

> Personally, I think accusing people of making strawman arguments is 
> disruptive and a waste of time. It is better to assume good faith on the 
> part of anyone you disagree with, and reply to what they say on the 
> level, unless you have reason to believe otherwise.

Anything can be turned upside down. Including the good vocabulary 
that Sam presented (ad nausem, filibuster, strawman). And if I 
have opened up for the opportunity to shoot down also that part of 
Sam's proposal, then I am truly sorry, because I think those 3 
words are good an necessary tools in trying to keep an on-topic debate

I belive it was Sam's intetion that we should look for the 
misbehaviour that those words represents not only in others but 
also in ourselves. And I certainly (think) I know which one of the 
3 words that I perhaps would get to hear most often.

The reason I did not discuss what you said - as you say you think 
I should have done - is found in what Sam said about were we 
should send our feedback in case we agreed or disagreed.

It was not wrong to send your disagreement to the list. However, 
portraying that action as if you had expressed that you had stated 
agreement, is something I continue to have problem with. (And by 
saying so I do not deny that, you "largely agree" - as would 
anyone who only disagree in one particular point.) It would have 
been much easier to discuss the point you made, if you had not 
portrayed your action like that.

But I am glad that you say it is a minor pont you disagreed with. 
Because it is not a minor point from my perspective.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 05:38:02 UTC