>Meta-arguments (arguments about a poster's style of argument) have been
>bubbling off and on here for several months and now seem to be at an
>angry boil. I have a suggestion.
>
>
>Those marriage-preparation books I read three years ago said that there
>are bad ways to argue, and "good" ways to argue. It is wrong to use
>phrases like, "You always do __________" or "You never do _________." It
>is much better to say, "When you did ___________, it made me feel
>____________."
>
>
>I think we can adapt those principles to our group. When another's choice
>of words really gets your goat, I suggest you preface your remarks with
>statements like, "I find your style unhelpful because it seems to me that
>______________." or "I perceived your arguments as being ______________."
>
>
>In short, describe your _perceptions_ of the other person's words (this
>allows them to alter their style and explain why the perception was
>unintended) rather than accusing them of some less-than-noble tactic
>(which forces them to become defensive). If one side of the argument
>starts doing this, maybe the other side will eventually start doing it,
>too.
Great advice. However, that's not the way *Real Men* do it as they wipe the
grease, dripping down their chin from the turkey leg, on their sleeves. So
doubtless some will have difficulty being so sensitive.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu