Re: Screening out or buffering polemic

On 2008-04-17, David <pchristainsen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Wiktionary
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polemic
>
> "The art or practice of aggressive debate, attack on
> or refutation of the opinions or principles of another"
>
> KEYWORD - "aggressive"

That's a pretty dodgy definition!

Try <http://www.answers.com/polemic?nafid=3>.

> -----
>
> Over the years SRQ has degenerated and many
> regulars bailed out.  The reason is unquakerly
> polemics.

What's unquakerly about polemics?  "Plain Speaking" seems to require a 
polemical approach at least sometimes.

> To reform it, my policy is to answer it back
> whenever it rears its ugly head.

I don't know what "it" refers to in that sentence, but what you describe 
as your "policy" is a pretty good example of "polemic".  If you don't want

to see it being done, don't do it.

> Further, I advocate that SRQers try to get on
> the other person's wavelength for mutual
> conversation.and learning from each other.

I suggest that you try setting an example of that if that's really what
you 
want to see going on.  So far, your conduct is a near-perfect 
demonstration of doing the exact opposite.  (And no, that is not a 
personal attack, even if it feels like it).

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~