On 3/29/00, S . . . ? <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
<< I feel the tone of this discussion string is developing into a rather
aggressive debate. The sarcasm detracts from the content. Please do not let
your egos get in the way of rational argument and make reading these e-mails
a more pleasurable experience for all who read them. >>
***Kindly note that there is a considerable amount of content in all of my
messages on Pilates and Physiology. The added comments might be what one
does not share in a conference paper, but in the round table discussions that
follow, just as periodically happens at many conferences or in departmental
seminars where there are significant differences of opinion.
If one reads the history of many scientific theories, we become amazed to
note some of the emotive and tough exchanges that took place while each
theory was vying for dominance. It is when the debate contains virtually no
content and almost all opinion and emotion that the discussions become
totally counterproductive. Or when authorities like religions step in to
decree what is heretical and burn people at the stake to establish dominance.
I trust that we are all mature and experienced enough to balance the serious
with the less serious, as is often the case in debate between academics. This
sort of repartee is what characterised folk such as Winston Churchill.
However, I strongly agree that personal attacks are quite unnecessary and I
lament if that seems to be the scenario that is developing.
So, let's hear some totally objective comments from others on the current
debate! Over to you! How about some comments on that "Starling's Law
Paradox" that I raised in my last Pilates letter, SHarr9966 ? Had our
exchanges on Pilates not occurred, this interesting item would not have
emerged, so there happen to be fruits even in the less perfect communications
between Simon Mesner and myself.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|