An intensional misrepresentation of what is being said I find highly unethical.
In my above concern I was talking about one of the most effective
manipulation techniques: dividing people. This meme could be observed on
this list several times: dividing by gender, by the amount of soap they use,
etc. Specifically I stressed how unproductive and vicious it is to use it as
part of the argument, as the "*because* part". I did not mention any names.
My purpose was clearly to establish some rules, and not to re-discuss
Brett's or Richard's previous remarks. I used the weird "s/he" pronoun to
stress my intension.
Your bringing specific people's names here was indeed a misrepresentation of
what I intended to say. Was it intensional?
You are describing what was said by whom instead of quoting them. I find
this another way of misrepresentation.
I have a question for you, Reed, and please answer it *without* referring to
any particular person even if it sounds familiar. Let's imagine it was said
by a Christian priest. Is this priest claiming different privileges than
the rest of the congregation on the basis that he is a priest?:
"I thought you were proposing that if I wasn't consistent then there would
be no value in my pointing out inconsistencies in others. This I disagree
with. I'm here to assist in the growth and learning of the memebers of the
Church."
I also don't exactly understand your above statement (and I think it's a
very important meme):
>A person who insists that standards of consistency aren't important
>shouldn't be expected to care if you point out inconsistencies.
What are you saying about this "person who insists that standards of
consistency aren't important":
(1) is s/he not responsible for what s/he is saying?
(2) is s/he warning others to ignore her/im?
(3) should be expected to be treated differently (how?) than the consistent
ones?
(4) ???
Very interesting discussion. As I said before, this list is in a stage of
forming rules. The MS Flippers are interested in "informal" rules: what
"we" should do, not what "I" should do; "don't expect me to follow any rules
-- I am against rules", but, "look, what *you* do is wrong".
Are we ready to accept some rules? I don't think so. Not for a long
time... Clearly defined rules are against MS Flippers.
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159