Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!chuq From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET Message-ID: <35037@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 26 Sep 89 21:29:40 GMT References: <35033@apple.Apple.COM> <46115@bbn.COM> Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps Lines: 42 >This is a good analysis of how one kind of debate/argument can break >down on Usenet. Unfortunately, this kind of debate (about some >*facts*) is, I think, in the minority. The same sort of debates take >place over matters of opinion and over matters of belief, where facts >may play only a supporting role (and on both sides) or may be more or >less irrelevant. The types of argument Chuq describes apply here as >well. Good point. To some degree it *is* covered in what I say, using my ability to do some metaphorical handwaving about the definition of the term 'fact'. But you do get into discussions where the only reasonable thing is to "agree to disagree" and let the matter drop. The point I was trying to make was that people should strive to stick within the tenets of the discussion -- you don't, for instance, get into the matter of the marital status of your opponents mother when arguing about whether emacs or vi is a better editor. You stick to emacs and vi. To be really, really brief (if that's at all possible for me), here are the keys to avoiding flamewars: o Discuss the posting, not the poster. o Stick to the discussion. o If the discussion isn't getting anywhere, then drop it. o If it's already been said, don't say it again. o If you're the minority viewpoint and you're not going to persuade people, then be gracious and get out of the way of the majority, even if you know you're right. You will then be able to say "I told you so" when they go off and do it and it blows up in their face (and you can quietly slip into the darkness if it doesn't...) If there is *one* specific thing that bothers the hell out of me on USENET, it is the personal attack disguised as a rebuttal. It's content-free, completely meaningless, mean-spirited and unethical. It accomplishes nothing. People who can't argue the issues shouldn't argue at all. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.