On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, snitsnat wrote:
> 'look everyone, Joe Schmoe says this. Must be Joe Schmoe is afraid of
> biology. OF course, on Joe Schmoe's view....."
>
> Is this an attempt to have a conversation _with_ Joe Schmoe? It's having a
> conversation with the rest of the list _ABOUT_ Joe Schmoe. This is not
> conducive to constructive discussion. Nor is it helpful to engage in logical
> fallacies -- erecting straw men, misrepresenting the other's position.
>
> Now, in the context of some public debate forum, where you actually _do_ turn
> to an audience and address them, where the point is to be scored and win and
> convince an audience, maybe it's acceptable. Here? No. I realize Miles does
> it as well. I've complained before, to both Miles and Justin. If Miles were
> to do it to me, he'd get flamed too.
I guess it's not too surprising that a college professor and a professor-turned-lawyer would switch on "public debate" mode; it's more or less what we've paid to do. The "on Joe S's view" thing doesn't bug me, though (Justin also did that with me in the homosexuality thread, and I just did it to him right here!). When I post this, I'm not having a dyadic conversation with you, Kel; I'm saying something in a public space in the midst of hundreds of people, any of whom might respond. I really don't see how LBO--or even a particular thread on LBO!--could be like a conversation between two people. In a public forum, we sometimes need to refer to one of the many participants by name, because we're not just talking to that one person.
That said, I agree Kel's point that we should strive for constructive discussion and avoid logical fallacies. (Sorry, couldn't resist the third person here, but it actually illustrates my point.)
Miles