Re: Screening out or buffering polemic

On Apr 18, 9:10=A0am, Whiskers <catwhee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-04-17, David <pchristain...@[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=3D3>.
>
> > -----
>
> > Over the years SRQ has degenerated and many
> > regulars bailed out. =A0The reason is unquakerly
> > polemics.
>
> What's unquakerly about polemics? =A0"Plain Speaking" seems to require a
> polemical approach at least sometimes.

I am using the word in its negative connotation, not its
technical sense.

> > 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". =A0If you don't
wa=
nt
> to see it being done, don't do it.

To the contrary you have not been paying close attention.
I never attack the person, only the person's wicked acts.

> > 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
yo=
u
> want to see going on. =A0So far, your conduct is a near-perfect
> demonstration of doing the exact opposite. =A0(And no, that is not a
> personal attack, even if it feels like it).
>...

I already set a positive example in the recent Thread about
God.  I invite you to get involved.

-----

David Christainsen