Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Communication and Argument
Message-ID: <2580@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jul-84 20:26:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2580
Posted: Wed Jul  4 20:26:45 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:39:30 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 35

{ Hi.  It's me again [:-)].  I know -- I said I threw in the
towel, and I meant it.  Actually, this isn't a continuation,
but a meta-discussion, concerning the form, not the content,
of the previous discussion.  Bear with me. }

Robert,

I just read your latest posting.  It seems your entire defense
of Trish depends on assuming she didn't mean what she said.  In
fact, you get upset when people assume you meant what you said.
I can't accept responsibility for your inability to communicate.
Or Trish's, if that's really all it was.  Sorry.

I'm beginning to understand your style of argument, and I think
it's been responsible for much of the heat between us.  Many of
the things you say are for effect, and you show little concern
for their consistency with actual fact or your own past remarks.
Also, you tend to confuse fact and feeling.  ("More people were
attacking gays than defending them," rather than, "The attacks
on gays were so blatant that I was much more aware of them than
the defenses."  Or again, "Trish was the only one to speak out",
rather than, "Trish spoke out the most strongly, so her remarks
stick out in my mind.")

Since I value technical accuracy and logical consistency highly,
I've tended to view your arguments as dishonest.  I see now that
in your own eyes, there was no dishonesty.

I ask you to reconsider this style of argument.  I think it will
get in your way more than it will help you.

-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories