Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup.
From: Daniel Weston (daniel009_at_webtv.net)
Date: 08/12/04
- Next message: FrediFizzx: "Re: The Lyman series from the alpha constant"
- Previous message: Benno Muilwyk: "Re: Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:03:21 -0700
I am not sure that the purpose of this ng is to resolve arguments. Many
of us come hear to learn from others. Some changes occur gradually. I
have seen people's ideas about science and related topics evolve over
the years. Sometimes people play the devils advocate and argue against
a proposition that they accept, but want to test it as much as possible.
This "argument" never gets resolved. I find this ng very valuable in
that both sides are argued vigorously and in that process I get to hear
both sides strongly presented.
I long ago learned not to rely on a proponent of X theory to reliably
tell me of the case against the X theory. We can all learn by observing
opposing advocates. Resolution on this ng does not in itself prove a
lot. Each person must rely on their own integration.
- Next message: FrediFizzx: "Re: The Lyman series from the alpha constant"
- Previous message: Benno Muilwyk: "Re: Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Why few arguments get resolved on this newsgroup."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|