🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <676736110.29234@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes:
>Mathew has crossed the line from annoying repetitive (though
>marginally productive) flaming to intellectual dishonesty.

You know, I so wish we could stop being repetitive.  We have to keep
saying things like "No, we don't think that sites should mail reports to
the posters of bad articles" and "Who is to blame for the bad article
has nothing to do with the case" over and over again.  Perhaps if people
could stop dredging up the same old strawmen we could stop refuting them
and move on to productive debate.

As for intellectual dishonesty, Neil's first point is simply incorrect,
and remains incorrect within the context of the article.  Mathew pointed
the error out.  If he'd done a point-by-point refutation of the article,
he would have been accused of repetition.

Accusations of repetition play an interesting part in debate. 
Polititians use them to avoid questions.

"So, what do you intend to do about it?"

"I'm glad you asked me that question.  The situation today is simply
unnacceptable, and it was one of my election pledges to resolve it.  I
intend to keep that pledge."

"So, what do you intend to do about it?"

"We're setting up a subcommittee to take action on it.  We polled local
residents and over seventy percent said that action is needed, and it is
a scandal that the opposition party took no action at all."

"So, what do you intend to do about it?"

"Please, stop being so repetitive."

Sad to say, repetition can be very necessary in some debates.  As Prince
said "There's joy in repetition.  There's joy in repetition."
                                         ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
"I say we kill him and eat his brain."
"That's not the solution to _every_ problem, you know!" -- Rudy Rucker