🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Slade writes:
>     The more I thought about Phillip Bitar's message of February 3rd, the
>more complex the issues became. My first reaction was that I had nothing to
>message, to identify the topic of the original message to which he is
>replying.  I cannot count the number of times that I have received a reply

Ha ha ha.  What was that? Sorry, but what was Phillip's message about?
That was six weeks ago here.

and

>...but feels that a) he can't disagree, b) he can't compete and c) a simple 
> "amen" adds nothing to the discussion. While I appreciate both his esteem 
> and his reasons, I still long for "intelligent" responses.)

It seems to me that you are stating the obvious. 

Let's talk about something that is not so obvious, simply because it is kept 
hidden, and nobody wants to talk about it.  

Communication is, besides an act of explanation, also a means for propaganda.  

You don't have to look to far to see the effects of disinformation, commonly
referred to as lies.  On an historical basis, lies have enthroned bandits,
destroyed the mighty, and maintained the status quo for good or ill 
since time immemorial.  

I wrote in an earlier message that communication should be looked upon from
one criteria, and one criteria only, and that is "what is to be
accomplished?"

This is perhaps THE touchstone for communication, if what you say does not
lend itself towards moving the hearts or minds of someone to DO something
then you might be an artist. (which is something else entirely)

Just try to appoint a concept which does not fit.

Tony Marriott