> I'm all for vigorous disagreement. I'm not for epithets like "fool"
> and "wanker" and "pea-brained crypto-Pabloist."
I'm probably risking pointing out the obvious, but conducting a disagreement by hurling epithets like this, whatever you think about its contravention of the conventions of gentility, just isn't very educational to the bystanders.
As an old phil prof, I am partial to presenting what one believes to be sound arguments and evidence for one's statements. That way, anyone who disagrees can have the opportunity of digging into the subject and trying to determine who has more truth on their side.
When the Nader supporters stop their cursing and cutsy insults and actually get down to making factual statements about Nader, Bush, and Kerry, I usually find that I learn something, even though I may still disagree with them in the end. Likewise for the Kerry supporters.
When I see people shouting "fool" and "wanker" at each other, I naturally assume that they are probably not smart enough or well educated enough to come up with anything better. They are basically little kids having a shouting and shoving match on the playground.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax