Dear Gunnar,
Thank for your responses.
Perhaps you misread me.
Gunnar, I did NOT state that your post was inappropriate.
You write, "I will not really deal with your accusation that my post
was inappropriate for this list . . . "
I stated, "Gunnar's complaint is understandable, but it is inappropriate."
I was taking issue with you substance of your objection, not with the
fact that you posted it.
The post was appropriate and welcome.
The forum is a place for debate.
You write, " . . . when you have upbraided me in the past for such
transgressions I have received off-list posts supporting my positions
and telling me that your tirades and sweeping declarations were
keeping people from posting freely."
I did not upbraid you, nor did I accuse you of a transgression.
I disagreed with your position.
To upbraid (Merriam-Webster's 1990: 1296) is "to criticize severely:
to find fault with 2 reproach severely: scold vehemently."
I never accused you of transgression, which Merriam-Webster's defines
as "an act or, process, or instance of transgression, as [a:]
infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty."
While I disagreed with your position, it is hard to see that I
accused you of violating any law, command, or duty.
It did not seem to me that I subjected you to a tirade or a sweeping
declaration. Does a clear statement opposing a position "[keep]
people from posting freely"? Is challenging a position an attack on
the person who states the challenged position?
If those who write you off-list confuse challenging your position
with attacking you as a person, it is regrettable. They are NOT
supporting your position with reasoned argument. They are supporting
you as a person.
As I see it, I ALSO support you as a person - and I still challenge
your position.
I hope you didn't find it a personal accusation to head the earlier
post or this one "Swanson's Objections." Once I labeled Terry's idea
as "Love's Paradox," it seemed apposite to label your objections
"Swanson's Objections." I made both labels eponymous, in the manner
of "Boyle's Law" or the "Turing test."
I value you as a friend and debating partner. We have been in many
debates together on many lists - half the time we have argued the
same position, half the time we have argued opposite cases.
I will be happy to answer the substance of your post. In part, you
have misread my definitions and the argument they support, just as
you have apparently misunderstood my post as an accusation.
Before I do, let me ask you a question.
I have defined design.
You state that the definition is inadequate.
Please define design as you see it.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
|