That should be 'I'm not accusing you of anything'...
To put it more simply, I'm trying to avoid the argument deteriorating into silly provocations and, inevitably, name-calling, neither of which will help the discussion. I can't see why you wouldn't share that wish.
> On 26 Oct 2016, at 17:42, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> David, I'm not accused you of anything, I'm making a request for a more civil kind of exchange than has been the case between us of late.
> The suggested ground rules were merely to make the discussion less unpleasant, not in the least to make my position easier to defend. I've found that quite easy enough. Why should it be unfair to ask someone not to misrepresent an argument just as one example? Does an argument that becomes abusive mean that a position is harder to defend? No, it just distracts both sides from what the argument is. I can't even see why this reasonable proposal appears to you 'petulant'. Besides which my points are closely aligned to the list's regulations which you might care to have a look at, so I'm really changing nothing.
> Your last point you raise seems ok - of course it's fine to pick on instances you disagree with but not if it misrepresents the whole argument
> I haven't commented on Mark's post because, despite your frequent references to it as such, it is clearly not a 'definition' but a humorous and pithy summary of the overlap of poems and songs. It is fun to read but neither touches on nor explains any of the concerns I have about the differences between poems and songs, and I'm sure Mark would be the first to acknowledge that, even if he sees no difference.
>
> Of course you must do as you like, but if the discussion degenerates between us in the ways I'm trying to avoid, then I'll ignore your posts as you're free to ignore mine.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>> On 26 Oct 2016, at 17:05, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Jamie, I can't see this as being a true statement of my exchanges with you. If my responses are difficult for you to address, then that is one thing, your changing the rules to make your own position easier to defend is unfair and seems quite a petulant response.
>>
>> I've already said that I agree with Mark Weiss on his definition of songs/poems, and am surprised that you haven't argued with the soundness of it, but have concentrated on my position on the matter, which, as i said, in light of Mark's response, I'm prepared to not pursue further, as Mark has fully addressed the issue.
>>
>> My "not exiting" the discussion, has been due to feeling the need to agree with further points Tim Allen has made and which you have found fault with. I find what Tim says on this matter accurate and interesting. Others have found your position similarly so, and I fully welcome that.
>>
>> I have to add, that of the list of things you accuse me of, I do accept the charge of rebutting, as you put it, "a single partial point extracted from a larger context", but I don't see it as being bad, but as having some value. Focusing on particular aspects of an argument that are mistaken, and addressing them, is something that saves constant rehearsals of "whole arguments" simply to rebut one aspect of them. I'm surprised you even mention this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------Original Message--------------------
>>
>> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>>
>> From the plethora of posts from you since your declared 'exit', I take it
>> that you are now back in the discussion. Fine by me.
>> Can we establish a few ground rules? (All I believe are in the spirit of
>> the list's 'rules'.) We don't attribute words and ideas to each other that
>> have not been said. We try not to misrepresent the other's arguments for the
>> sake of scoring points. We attempt not just to rebut a single partial point
>> extracted from a larger context but try to see the whole argument. And
>> finally try to keep it reasonably respectful.
>> Otherwise this exchange between us will deteriorate even further which
>> will be acrimonious for the two of us, and tedious, if it isn't already so,
>> for everyone else.
>> Jamie
|