Author: KarinsDad
Date: 20:17:58 11/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1999 at 21:23:39, odell hall wrote: [snip] >> >>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. You may have missed part of my statement. I also said "Does that mean that any angry response to a message implies that the message was unreasonable? Of course not." This would be a case of members of the group not approving of a post, but it not being unreasonable and takes care of the cases where the group can be irrational or delusion (as per your message below). >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. > What I was stating was that IF nobody gets angry over a post, then it most likely falls into the definition of reasonable. Your Hitler example doesn't quit hold here since a large minority of the people did think he was unreasonable, but they were too scared to do anything about it. Here, if somebody thinks you are unreasonable, they will let you know about it (hard to punish people with death here). I did not state that if somebody gets angry over a post, then it is definitively unreasonable. In fact, I stated that it could be reasonable. I am not against spirited discussion or disagreement at all. I think some people think that I am against it since I like the waters to be smooth. There is a major difference between being civilized (or reasonable) about heated discussion and creating controversy, just in order to create havoc. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 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.