Dear Terry, Ranjanm, Lily, and Klaus,

Thanks for these posts. I value your comments.

One aspect of this is an appreciation for the debate -- since I can't 
see how Klaus could have debated himself, I'm hoping your comments 
were intended for both of us.

Klaus. I seem to irritate you these days. Could it be that because of 
this, you don't take the time to read what I have written? I did not 
accuse you of logic-chopping. I accused MYSELF in a facetious comment.

As a passing joke in a longer post, I accused myself of 
logic-chopping on Wednesday 23 January. (Posted 21:49, titled "Re: Is 
all writing fiction?") In the post, I proposed three answers to a 
question. I poked fun at my first answer, writing "The first answer 
is a version of Medieval logic-chopping." I was the logic-chopper 
here and I entered a guilty plea before abandoning that line of 
argument.

While I may be guilty of the character flaws you accuse me of, but 
you've also accused me of crimes I did not commit.

This post is about the debate. Since you called my character into 
question, it concerns character
and feelings.

As far as I am concerned, you are a first-rate thinker and scholar. 
Even so, I don't agree with you on everything. Robust debate does not 
cut off possibilities. It opens them. Debate opens possibility as 
long as each of us is free to speak. Each of us IS free to speak as 
we wish on the list. I feel as though your character critique -- like 
Teena's comments on my motives -- is a demand that I accept your 
views or remain silent. This cuts off possibilities.

If you do a content analysis -- an area of your expertise -- you will 
find I have articulated strong views forcefully. If you analyze my 
posts, I doubt that you will find personal accusations. You will find 
is statements where I thought you to be wrong, incorrect, or mistaken 
in some of your assertions. That is different to an accusation 
against your person.

Like you, I've had many off-list comments. Apparently, everyone who 
writes to you agrees with you. I'm not so lucky. I also get notes 
from people who agree with you. They want me to realize that I am a 
worthless debater, a rigid dogmatist, and an objectivist hiding my 
opinions behind the authority of the dictionary. Happily for me, 
these notes are balanced by those who write to say that I'm a serious 
thinker and a nice fellow.

Among these, some criticize you. This is their privilege. I won't 
post their views to the list. Anyone who wants to criticize you is 
free to do it -- without my help. I hold to my good opinion of you 
while disagreeing with you on the issues we have debated here.

Jonas's post seemed like an good moment to take a break, so I did. 
Now that the subject of the debate comes up again -- with your 
implicit critique of me -- I'll add my two cents.

I'm glad that our colleagues value the debate. Among the good things 
people said about both of us here and in off-list notes is that they 
welcomed the kind of debate they rarely get to hear or witness. Many 
people work in design schools or university departments where 
culture, custom, or majority opinion constrain them to conformity or 
silence. The great virtue of the PhD-Design discussion list is that 
it afford us the opportunity for a seminar debate. That sometimes 
means a sharp exchange of views when two people have strong opinions. 
Anyone with an appreciation for the history of ideas knows that good 
ideas can be forged this way as well as through open-ended agreement 
on possibilities.

Many list members share Jonas's view that the debate was boring. A 
dear friend and a scholar whom I respect deeply wrote me off-list 
that the debate was so lacking in entertainment value that it would 
be more interesting to watch boards warp. I'm sure I'm guilty here, 
too.

Nevertheless, I did not withdraw from the debate because we bored 
Jonas. I withdrew because I am fond of you as a person, and I felt 
bad about the tone of our interaction. I felt sad that you 
misconstrued an argument as a personal accusation, and it seemed to 
me that there was no way to conduct a forthright debate without 
offending you. I'd be perfectly happy to go on boring Jonas, but he 
offered us a way out. I thought it was good advice and a good time to 
stop.

Wolfgang Pauli used to dismissal work he did not respect by saying, 
"This is so bad it's not even wrong." I'm prepared to be told I'm 
wrong when the person who holds me wrong is ready to make a case for 
his or her views on the case and not in terms of my person.

As for my rhetorical style, I suppose I become more engaged than I 
should. I've read too much Melville, too much Shakespeare, and too 
much Luther. For this, I can only apologize.

My two cents.

Ken