On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:47:01 -0700, "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> offered us
these thoughts:
>
><Chaldean> wrote
>
> > It
>> would almost, but not quite, mitigate the abuse of power in the
>> "preexisting relation****p" question.
>
>A thought-provoking question constitutes an abuse of power? Heaven forbid
>Big Brother should ever stray from catering to the lowest common
>denominator.
Now now, you're heading toward intemperance. <s>
It would take far too many words to explain why I feel TPTB did *not*
intend "a thought-provoking question" but rather a "gimmicky gotcha!
moment." It would bore readers, you and especially me. But I should
think you can trust me when I say I could make the argument.
I also could make the argument that TPTB were thoughtful and
intelligent in developing the controversial question. It would bore
readers, you and especially me. But I should think you can trust me
when I say I could make the argument.
I was in the junior high debate club for a semester. That taught me
that almost always there's a good argument on both sides of any
question. Good to know, but it means debate is pointless in a quest
for truth, so I quit the club. <s>
We see the same glass as half full or half empty. The way we see it
obviously says much more about ourselves than about the glass.
I cannot say "you are wrong" about this question controversy, because
it is just another glass. For me to say "you are wrong" is literally
for me to say *you* are wrong. I don't believe that. I believe you
just see things from a different point of view than I. Most of life
is an ink blot test; most of what we all say is a description of the
blot rather than identification of fact.
So I prefer to say it was an abuse of power, and then shut the hell
up! (^_^)
--
Bob
|
