Author: odell hall
Date: 18:23:39 11/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1999 at 15:34:33, KarinsDad wrote: >On November 15, 1999 at 15:01:39, Bella Freud wrote: > >[snip] >> >>A fine argument. >> >>Please allow me to ask you a question. What is "reasonable"? Can you answer that >>with positives, not a list of don'ts? And then consider a second question. Is >>there more than one definition of "reasonable"? And the third question. Is it >>"reasonable" to be "unreasonable" under certain circumstances? >> >> >> >>Bella > >If you have to ask such questions, then it is obvious that no answer that I give >you would satisfy you. Either you know the answers to those questions yourself >already (and you are willing to abide by your agreement when you signed up), or >you do not (and are not). > >And yes, I can give you a positive answer to your first question. A reasonable >post is one where nobody gets offended enough by it to either respond with an >angry reply or send an Email to the moderators asking for it (or the poster's) >removal. Does that mean that any angry response to a message implies that the >message was unreasonable? Of course not. It does mean, however, that your track >record of angry responses to your messages is indicative of a deeper problem. > Karisdad, I disagree with your definition of a reasonable Post, You imply that if the group does not approve a post then the post is inherently unreasonable. But this view ingores the reality that the group can be often irrational and swept up in mass delusion. Take for instance Hitler in Nazi germany, 90 % of them thought hitler was Godsent. According to your definition he was because he had the approval of the group? There is also numerous examples in history where people had certain ideas of science and were condemned and even burned, but these indivisual were reasonable and actually above the norm in understanding. I look at the intrinsic value of any post, I don't care about how people react to it, for me this is not a basis for determining a post merit. Sometimes people will react negatively to a Post because they don't like the poster, or don't identify with the poster? Yet the Poster can be writing very valuable insightful messages. If I am completely misunderstanding you let me know. >Would you go into a courtroom and tell a judge that he was a sexist or an idiot? >If that is unreasonable behavior there, then why would you think it would be >reasonable here? Because we are all truly separated by distance here? Does that >give one the right? Or does it just give one the opportunity? > >Most everybody (myself included) makes mistakes in the heat of discussion. But >that is not what this is about. It's about purposely attempting to make subtle >antagonistist comments about others and/or the group. > >KarinsDad :)
This page took 1.07 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.