Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era
From: era@killer.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: MESmith, Larry Lippman and sanity
Message-ID: <2304@killer.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Dec-87 04:03:56 EST
Article-I.D.: killer.2304
Posted: Fri Dec  4 04:03:56 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 22:20:20 EST
References: <288@snark.UUCP> <1902@geac.UUCP>
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 42
Keywords: sanity non-sequiteur consensus
Xref: hoptoad talk.politics.misc:9682 alt.flame:858

In article <1902@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes:
>In article <288@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP writes:
>>I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that

Your opinion?  Is that your personal opinion, and the personal
opinions of some other individuals, or a collective agreement
by everyone?  Obviously the people who you claim attacked you did
not agree.  They have differing opinions.  So there is no collective
agreement, no consensus, just differing opinions.  And these
differing opinions do not even divide according to gender lines.

>>   I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially
>>   lost contact with consensus reality.

>  The last two words are critical: the argument is from consensus.

Exactly, David.  Eric's argument is from consensus.  Yet there is no
collective agreement as to the meaning of the word consensus.

>>   MESmith and his indignant defenders would have us draw, but a sobering

So there is not only an attempt to discredit me, but an attempt
to discredit anyone who does not agree with Eric.  When Eric
states a personal opinion, that is a consensus, and anyone who
disagrees, is "indignant," that is, emotional rather than logical.

Eric could have claimed to hold a traditional opinion, a majority
opinion, or possibly even an official opinion, but when someone
claims that they have a consensus, while admitting that there are
people who disagree with them, a fact which indicates that they do
not have a consensus or collective agreement at all, there is a 
fault in their thinking.

Eric may not be aware of the meaning of the word consensus, or
Eric may have difficulty with logic, particularly when the issues
involved arouse strong emotional reactions.  But to claim to have
a consensus when no consensus exists, is irrational at best, a
deliberate political ploy at worst, and, in any case, not behavior
appropriate to one who would assume the responsibility of
counselling others.

--Mark