[at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE - not trail related.

[stephensadams@hotmail.com (Steve Adams)]

A friend of mine obtained a degree in Sociology.  I once asked him what that 
amounted to; what had he actually learned pursuing that field.  He, without 
hesitation, advised, "Sociology is an elaboration of the obvious."

Someone posted a link about "Godwin's Law."  (Thank you.)   I edited the 
contents severely for my own use.  I then noticed this also was clearly "an 
elaboration of the obvious."  You can effectively end the value of a thread 
through several different means.

The current "A.N.W.R. VOTE" thread is an example.  One post begins by 
telling us we "... should consider the fact that ..."  This "fact" turns out 
to be only an assertion.  Then follow terms which leave room for argument 
(Forced, Most of, Mainly, No control, Converted, No responsibility, Plenty, 
Manipulated, Solely, I suspect, Prevented, Forced, All, Blocked, Led to, 
Forced, Snowed under, Endless, Blocked, Have to).

This topic is so large, our "sound bite" posts don't deal with it 
effectively.  People have sufficient space to espouse information they 
collected which supports their predispositions.  They then want to get out 
their entire message and, in that attempt, include so many assumptions or 
"wiggle words", which they use innocently as their shorthand, no one is 
going to invest the effort to challenge them all.  If an assertion contains 
a sufficient number of assumptions, therefore, the assertion remains 
unchallenged, or at least ineffectively challenged.   Informed and reasoned 
discourse doesn't follow.

Does anyone know a mechanism to address an argument, breaking it down piece 
by piece, perhaps into a series of "conversations", arguing about 
assumptions which arise and elaborating upon differing and valid points of 
view?

Just thinking.

Steve


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp