>
I wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone thought to merely ignore these attackers and keep _their_
> >discussion going on the topic at hand? It only takes one to blather; it
> >takes at least 2 to argue.
> >
> >Let them shout into the ether and don't "defend" against them.
>
and 'tother Jim wrote:
>I've got a problem with this. I've worked long enough both in state
>government and now in higher education to know that if you let the babble
>go on unattended, then the babble grows to a BABBLE. And then to a
>cacophany of babble. And then to a CACOPHONY of BABBLE after that.
>
>Call me naive. I don't think there's much to be gained at all from simply
>yielding the floor to the ideologue. There is a fairly well known quote
>from Dag Hammarskjöld that I wont't take the time to locate at the moment,
>but it basically states: "The madman in the street eventually succeeded in
>his mad plan because no one took the time originally to explain his madness
>to the world."
>
>I don't think there is anything at all to be gained by ignoring people.
an' I reply:
There's nothing to be gained from arguing with a zealot, either -- except a
headache and stomach cramps.
Often, in my experience, the fellow who climbs up on a soapbox only to
discover that no one listens to him, soon drags his soapbox off to another
streetcorner.
But . . . 'tis your list.
[log in to unmask] - Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|