Hi Karl,
Chill ? - I said "in the nicest possible way" ;-) (complete with
light-hearted smiley, without the slightest hint of sarcasm)
On the line at issue ... I see the difference as semantic, almost
pedantic, still almost a tautology ... but I will explain to make
clear.
I used the word "fact" in that sentence that's true, yep you got me
there ... but I used it to make the same point as you, "the fact is"
it's a value judgement - some things have more value than others. (The
recursion / paradox / humour in the words are a good sign, but that's
another story for another day)
As I said we were violently agreeing.
As to talking about the most important things - I was trying to move
us on, up a notch. In the same way as the value statement stuff above
is obvious to both of us, it is also obvious to both of us that
"control" based on wielding power is oppressive and deadly dangerous.
I don't need reminding of that any more than you do, or anyone who
calls themselves an FoW.
That shouldn't stop us talking about mechanisms ad types of "control"
(your word) and "governance" (my word). (The caveats that power
corrupts and most so-called facts are really value judgements - are
no-brainers, that don't need re-stating here, surely ?)
Keep talking ?
(Waffle is dialogue and narrative.)
Ian
On 3/1/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> You said that
>
> "The brutal fact is not everyone's vote need have the same value"
>
> I said that was not a fact, but it was a value judgement, and asked you to
> explain it.
> You haven't, but instead just responded with waffle.
>
> It is clearly you who is agitated and I think it is you who should read what
> people are actually saying. Otherwise trying to discuss important things
> with you is a waste of time.
>
> Karl.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your
> email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
>
>
|