hi abbadon:
thank you for your viewpoints so far, including this one -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh, goo, you still haven't bothered engaging in rational debate about the subject you wanted us to all SLAM Jan for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i said it was a slamworthy post - a matter of interpretation - leaving it open for anyone to slam it whatever way they wanted - you'll recall i did not specify who or what should be slammed - i was giving that option to the respondant - the intent of the post.
you chose to interpret my subject title and post content - as an invitation for all to slam janh - and engage in "rational debate" - to my mind your choosing to do so was but one of the many, many interperative options available in responding.
however the interpretation you chose was of interest.
Also i do not feel compelled to let the cat completely out of the bag with the content of a subjects first post. you're viewpoint may be that this is manipulation, mine however is that it isn't.
story tellers work from the end backward and the means used in communicating their ideas normally includes entertaining and positing more than one dimensional polarised perspectives cramped into one post down one thread.
this is as far into a "rational debate" as i'm prepared to go on the subject if you are unable to make these kinds of differentiations.
I hope this helps explain my viewpoint to you in a little more detail.
thanks abbadon for giving me yours
goo. written from deletion row jw.com
Edited by - goo on 9 May 2001 23:26:7