From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #70 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, March 18 2005 Volume 14 : Number 070 Today's Subjects: ----------------- The Decemberists' gear [Jill Brand ] The Decemberists' gear [Jeff ] RE: The Decemberists' gear ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Barbara's question [Barbara Soutar ] assorted reaps [Christopher Gross ] Re: Barbara's question [Rex Broome ] Re: Barbara's question [Christopher Gross ] Re: Barbara's question [Rex Broome ] Back to music [Barbara Soutar ] I think we should just ban chearleading (NR) [steve ] Re: Barbara's question [The Great Quail ] An item close to my heart [Eb ] Re: Barbara's question [Rex Broome ] Re: An item close to my heart ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Barbara's question [The Great Quail ] Re: Barbara's question [Jeff ] Re: the ongoing. [James Dignan ] Re: Barbara's question [Rex Broome ] RE: The Decemberists' gear ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Back to music [Rex Broome ] RE: Barbara's question ["Marc Alberts" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:43:50 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: The Decemberists' gear I was really really really sad to read that the Decemberists' van with all their gear had been stolen. I only allow myself (or find the time) to invest my musical attention in/to a new band every 5 years or so, and the Decemberists seem to be that band right now (although I agree with Eddie that their upbeat jingle-jangle songs are much better than the very long drony ones). I can't imagine what it is like to lose all that; I sure hope it is retrieved. Portlandfegs, please keep me updated. Jill, who wonders if she will brave a Decemberists gig alone in May, where she will be about 20 years older than anyone else in the audience ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:01:07 -0600 From: Jeff Subject: The Decemberists' gear On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:43:50 -0500 (EST), Jill Brand wrote: > Jill, who wonders if she will brave a Decemberists gig alone in May, where > she will be about 20 years older than anyone else in the audience Oh, I don't know about that: I think there are plenty of people in their forties and fifties* (judging from this list, for one thing) who occasionally still go out to shows. Plus, when I was younger and went to more shows, I always thought it was really cool when someone "old" (as I thought of them at the time) showed up. * You haven't mentioned your age - I'm just adding twenty to "drinking age or better" np: _This Is Where I Belong: The Songs of Ray Davies and The Kinks_ (Lambchop's version of "Art Lover") - -- ...Jeff, 43 The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:49:28 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: The Decemberists' gear > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:43:50 -0500 (EST), Jill Brand > wrote: > > > Jill, who wonders if she will brave a Decemberists gig > alone in May, where > > she will be about 20 years older than anyone else in the audience Jeff came back with: > Oh, I don't know about that: I think there are plenty of people in > their forties and fifties* (judging from this list, for one thing) who > occasionally still go out to shows. Plus, when I was younger and went > to more shows, I always thought it was really cool when someone "old" > (as I thought of them at the time) showed up. > > * You haven't mentioned your age - I'm just adding twenty to "drinking > age or better" > > np: _This Is Where I Belong: The Songs of Ray Davies and The Kinks_ > (Lambchop's version of "Art Lover") I will be attending my first Decemberists show this May. I might be the oldest audience member at age 52, a month and a half older than Robyn! Michael B. NP They Might Be Giants - Lincoln ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:11:23 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Forgive me... > April 14th, The Port Mahon Oxford: The Black Watch+The Jazz Butcher+Anton > Barbeau+The New Moon Whoa, that is very cool. Wish I could make it. Some of us like hearing about Feggy musical endeavors. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:18:04 -0500 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Barbara's question Quail said: "Barbara, this is why I cannot take you seriously in a political discussion. You simply see everything in such simplistic terms, largely stemming from such totalizing positions as your womanhood, your Canadian-ness, your liberalism, and so forth." Actually I don't really enjoy engaging in political discussions. They aren't "fun" or "entertaining" for me. The only reason I discuss things like war is because I panic when I picture the destruction that will occur. Then I drag up all kinds reasons why the war should not go forth. If they are illogical to you, so be it. For me it's not an exercise in debating skills, it's a desperate plea to those who have the power to stop it. Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:50:55 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: assorted reaps Fantasy and SF writer Andre Norton, 93. US diplomat and scholar George Kennan, 101 (!). ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:01:29 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Barbara's question Barbara: > Actually I don't really enjoy engaging in >political discussions. They aren't "fun" >or "entertaining" for me. The only reason I >discuss things like war is because I panic >when I picture the destruction that will occur. >Then I drag up all kinds reasons why the war >should not go forth. If they are illogical to you, >so be it. For me it's not an exercise in debating >skills, it's a desperate plea to those who have >the power to stop it. Jeez, Barbara... how naively human of you. This actually struck a strong chord in me. I would guess that whatever Quail *was* doing on 9/11, and I don't doubt it involved anguish and tears, he wasn't cradling his six-month-old and freaking the fuck out on the level of a parent... equal parts loving and yearning to protect the child and disparing for having brought her into this kind of world. That'll flush a lot of political nuance down the rock and roll toilet in no time at all. Some things are so godawful that all the understanding and political savvy in the world can't stop me from just knowing to my core they are wrong. Calling me or Barbara or whoever else naive won't change us. Quick poll: when was the last time you were witness to a political debate, in person or online, where one party actually reversed, or even significantly modified, their initital position based on the persuasive arguments of the other party? And if ever, did the persuading party win points by explictly mentioning the other party's ignorance? - -Rex, again committing the cardinal sin of talking about his family, which is bad because he should be a context-less cypher in an informational vacuum ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:16:37 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Barbara's question On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Rex Broome wrote: > Some things are so godawful that all the understanding and political > savvy in the world can't stop me from just knowing to my core they are > wrong. Calling me or Barbara or whoever else naive won't change us. 'Course whatever you "know" in your core, there's going to be someone else who "knows" the exact opposite in HIS core, and neither of you can ever prove whose core is right. Gut instincts are as fundamentally personal and incommunicable as loves or favorite colors. At least with rational debate, there is some faint hope of clarifying an issue. And let me add that if someone is naive or irrational, having a good reason for being that way may excuse them ... but it doesn't change the fact that they *are* naive or irrational, and thus more likely to be wrong. > Quick poll: when was the last time you were witness to a political > debate, in person or online, where one party actually reversed, or > even significantly modified, their initital position based on the > persuasive arguments of the other party? I think that a lot of people who post to political debates here aren't trying to change their opponent's mind so much as they are trying to convince the *rest* of the list, or at least show the rest of the list that there is another point of view out there. > -Rex, again committing the cardinal sin of talking about his family, > which is bad because he should be a context-less cypher in an > informational vacuum Rex, I've never had any problem with you or been bothered by what you write. However, if you or anyone else who was in this argument starts acting like a martyr, that WILL annoy me ... mainly because doing might cause the argument to flare up again. - --Chris "veteran Feglist arguer" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:28:22 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Barbara's question Christopher: > Rex, I've never had any problem with you or been bothered by what you > write. However, if you or anyone else who was in this argument starts > acting like a martyr, that WILL annoy me ... mainly because doing might > cause the argument to flare up again. Fair enough. I wasn't going for Martyr Status, just a little jumpy and concerned that Ooops I Did It Again, even though I had my reasons within the context of the discussion at hand. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:04:58 -0500 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Back to music Hi all, To bring my posts back to the lofty heights of music, which is what I'm really interested in: lately I've been researching Bob Dylan for an article I'm writing. Here is something he said that kind of makes me curious. He wrote in his Chronicles about Johnny Cash saying that "I Walk the Line" was Cash's defining song. And that Dylan himself thought that "The Man in the Long Black Coat" was his own defining song. This is his opinion - I'm not always convinced that artists are their own best critics. What do you think? It gives me insight into his mind though and that's always welcome. Possible topic to discuss: Is there such as thing as a defining song for a musician or group? If so, what? Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:07:19 -0600 From: steve Subject: I think we should just ban chearleading (NR) Bill would ban suggestive cheerleading School districts would lose funds if schools permit risqui routines By April Castro ASSOCIATED PRESS Friday, March 18, 2005 The Friday night lights in Texas could soon be without bumpin' and grindin' cheerleaders. Legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, would put an end to sexually suggestive performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions. "It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," said Edwards, a 26-year veteran of the Texas House. "And then we say to them, 'Don't get involved in sex unless it's marriage or love, it's dangerous out there.' And yet the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations." Under Edwards' bill, if a school district knowingly permits such a performance, funds from the state would be reduced in an amount to be determined by the education commissioner. Edwards said he filed the bill after he saw several such ribald performances in his district. J.M. Farias, owner of Austin Cheer Factory, said cheerleading aficionados would welcome the law. Cheering competitions, he said, penalize for suggestive movements or any vulgarity. "Any coaches that are good won't put that in their routines," he said. And most girls cheering on Friday nights were trained by professionals who know better, he said. "I don't think this law would really shake the industry at all. In fact, it would give parents a better feeling, mostly dads and boyfriends, too," Farias said. Although cheerleaders must meet the same no-pass, no-play academic requirements as athletes, cheerleading is not an activity sanctioned by the University Interscholastic League, the governing body of Texas high school sports. "I think it should have been cut out a long time ago," Edwards said. "It surely needs to be toned down." - - Steve __________ What's annoying is that America is not content to be the world's |ber-bully. It also wants to be loved. It's like Bogart and Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon. "When you're slapped," the U.S. sneers, "you'll take it and like it." - Steve Burgess, Canadian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:28:21 -0600 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: Back to music - ---- Original message ---- >From: Barbara Soutar > >I'm not always convinced that artists are their own best >critics. I think that's totally true. They are such different skills. The commercially successful artist knows exactly how best to say what they want to say, even if what they have to say isn't much. The lucky artist has people around who really understand what's trying to be said and can help steer the artist in ways that best accomplish that communication. The unbelievably-lottery-level-lucky artist has that skill as well as something legitimate and worthwhile to say. >Possible topic to discuss: Is there such as thing as a defining song for >a musician or group? If so, what? There are artists with just one defining song. However, it's difficult for me to name examples because I tend to prefer artists who give me a series of songs and ideas instead of just one. Risking on-list grief for discussing Dolphmusic, I'll just offer that what I think is my defining song of the moment is usually not the same song that my very intimate audience would consider the defining song of the moment to be. This is surprising and interesting and educational to me. It tells me I have a long way to go in communicating my ideas, and it very happily teaches me more about songs that I might otherwise have discarded. - -- Dolph whose thoughts about music, his and otherwise, are largely herded over onto his blog at so as not to offend, though some of you might like to know he is readying an EP... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:35:29 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Barbara's question Barbara writes, > Actually I don't really enjoy engaging in political discussions. I find that hard to believe. After all, they are entirely voluntary, and yet you continue to engage in them. I do not really enjoy engaging in technological discussions, and so...I do not. Rex writes, > Jeez, Barbara... how naively human of you. If I can address your tone rather than your words: being naive is not a virtue in political discussion. And having some kind of skills at discourse is necessary if you wish to effect change without violence. You are only enabling her. > This actually struck a strong chord in me. I would guess that > whatever Quail *was* doing on 9/11, and I don't doubt it involved > anguish and tears, he wasn't cradling his six-month-old and freaking > the fuck out on the level of a parent... equal parts loving and > yearning to protect the child and disparing for having brought her > into this kind of world. That'll flush a lot of political nuance down > the rock and roll toilet in no time at all. You could say that at almost any time, Rex! You think that concerned parents throughout every phase in history weren't feeling the same? "What a terrible time for a child to be born, given the Goth invasions / Nazi encroachment / 911 / War in Iraq / etc...." Having said that, I am not sure why you are even bringing this up...? I mean that with complete sincerity. > Quick poll: when was the last time you were witness to a political > debate, in person or online, where one party actually reversed, or > even significantly modified, their initital position based on the > persuasive arguments of the other party? One does not argue in a public forum merely to influence the opinion of your opponent. But even still, it does happen on occasion. > -Rex, again committing the cardinal sin of talking about his family, > which is bad because he should be a context-less cypher in an > informational vacuum No one is asking that Rex, and you know it. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:44:21 -0800 From: Eb Subject: An item close to my heart http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB111102511477881964- INjgINplaF4opyua4CHb6yEm4,00.html Now, where's the article dissecting the dreaded "WE LOVE YOU!" people? I guess it's up to me. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:59:19 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Barbara's question Quail: > If I can address your tone rather than your words: being naive is not a > virtue in political discussion. And having some kind of skills at discourse > is necessary if you wish to effect change without violence. You are only > enabling her. Well, I think of the term "enabling" as helping someone continue with a destructive behavior, and I don't consider Barbara's expression of her opinions to be destructive. You can believe those opinions to be as naive as you want, but nobody really gets to set the bar for how much one needs to know about any given situation in order to comment on it. If such a person makes egregious misstatements or draws silly conclusions based on that lack of information, presumably those more educated will recognize that and dismiss those opinions. Since you, Quail, are so opposed to haughtiness and thought-policing, it seems a little disingenuous for you to say "You don't know enough about this and thus should not talk about it". > You could say that at almost any time, Rex! You think that concerned parents > throughout every phase in history weren't feeling the same? "What a terrible > time for a child to be born, given the Goth invasions / Nazi encroachment / > 911 / War in Iraq / etc...." Sure. But I am correct that you have not had that such an experience yourself, right? Because if you ever do, I think you will understand that it does change your take on things. > Having said that, I am not sure why you are even bringing this up...? I mean > that with complete sincerity. Because what Barbara was describing, a sort of political frustration that is more emotional than logical, strongly resonated with certain of my own experiences. Therefore I find it harder to dismiss than you seem to, and I thought it deserved a brief defense in the form of a parallel example. That's all. > One does not argue in a public forum merely to influence the opinion of your > opponent. Okay, then, but (and this is also a sincere question), why else *does* one do it? Thinking out loud to reinforce one's own opinions? Making those opinions a matter of public record? This may just be me, but if you don't hope to be persuasive, and the net effect of the arguing is likely to be discord and acrimony, the value of it for either side of the equation escapes me. But I don't really like talking politics either (disbelieve as you will) other than with people who share the basics of my viewpoint, and with whom I can discuss the finer points of what I already believe. It's just something I've learned. If I get into it with a staunch Republican, neither of us are going to make any headway with each other, and like as not we'll both end up needlessly pissed off when we coulda had a few drinks and played Scrabble and started a great friendship based on other things... witness the recent love-fest between me and long-standing and Republic-to-the-core buddy Blatzman here. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:08:17 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: An item close to my heart At 12:44 PM 3/18/2005 -0800, Eb wrote: >Now, where's the article dissecting the dreaded "WE LOVE YOU!" people? >I guess it's up to me. OK, I'll admit I did yell "Freebird!" while I was at the Grammys telecast this year, but it I knew they were about to play it in about 5 seconds... - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:08:47 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Barbara's question Rex writes, > Well, I think of the term "enabling" as helping someone continue with > a destructive behavior, and I don't consider Barbara's expression of > her opinions to be destructive. Perhaps not destructive, but certainly not laudatory! >You can believe those opinions to be > as naive as you want, but nobody really gets to set the bar for how > much one needs to know about any given situation in order to comment > on it. I am not saying she shouldn't comment on it; I am saying that she shouldn't expect to be taken seriously unless she can really bring something to the table other than her uninformed, ill-considered opinions. She undermines herself with her naivety and prejudices. > Sure. But I am correct that you have not had that such an experience > yourself, right? Because if you ever do, I think you will understand > that it does change your take on things. > Because what Barbara was describing, a sort of political frustration > that is more emotional than logical, strongly resonated with certain > of my own experiences. Therefore I find it harder to dismiss than you > seem to, and I thought it deserved a brief defense in the form of a > parallel example. That's all. No, I am not a father. And I realize that it will change my life in ways I cannot understand. But I am not prepared to suggest that it will radically alter my politics, nor suddenly render me unable to articulate any sophisticated political ideas. > Okay, then, but (and this is also a sincere question), why else *does* > one do it? Thinking out loud to reinforce one's own opinions? Making > those opinions a matter of public record? Those are both valid; but when people have a debate online that I am *not* a part of, I enjoy reading both sides and exploring my own opinions on the subject, if any. It helps define and refine my own beliefs. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:24:03 -0600 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Barbara's question On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:59:19 -0800, Rex Broome wrote: > > One does not argue in a public forum merely to influence the opinion of your > > opponent. > > Okay, then, but (and this is also a sincere question), why else *does* > one do it? Thinking out loud to reinforce one's own opinions? Making > those opinions a matter of public record? Well, even if you it's unlikely that you achieve a slamdunk, instant-decision conversion of opinion of the person you're arguing with, it's also true that people's minds do change - and that those changes tend to be influenced by argument. I don't think I can point to any single, definitive source that caused me instantly to change my mind - and yet, over time I've changed my mind on many things, in some cases pretty radically. And I know part of the reason is stuff I've read or arguments I've had. Plus, there are innocent bystanders to be converted! More importantly, the process of working through argument clarifies (not just, or even, reinforces already-held opinions) - and I think that's of value. About a year ago, I had an extensive argument (some of it here, I think, much of it offlist) with someone here (Marc Alberts?) on economic issues. I doubt either of us changed the other's mind - but at least for me, having to deal with the substantive points he brought up forced me to clarify and think through my own perspectives on the issues - and to me that's always valuable. That argument wasn't (to me) acrimonious - although I'm sure there were moments in which sarcasm was involved - and that makes a huge difference. Passion, I can understand - but there's a difference between forcefully making a point, and forcibly inserting one's opinion directly into the gut of your opponent - esp. when that opinion is suddenly about the sexual performance of the opponent's mother, sister, pet goat, etc. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:51:50 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: the ongoing. >I made the mistake of assuming that all women were nurturing > protective types who would naturally be against the war in Iraq. two words - Condaleeza Rice. Two more: Margaret Thatcher. > Now we Canadians are figuring out exactly how we differ from Americans, > and that's good for us. We don't believe in The Rapture coming for one > thing - it makes all the difference. Well, it's not as good as Siouxsie's other albums, but it still exists. > > I mean, Canadians seem to have done a lot of good things...but they > > also produced Anne Murray and think hockey is a sport. > > Hockey is a sport. true, it is. But ice-hockey? > > You might want to rephrase that to "and think curling > > is a sport". > >Get tae fuck. Curling is a fine Scottish sport. I used to play at >schools league level, and it's a fine diversion. Canadians are always >cheating at it, that's how they win. hear hear! James (who lives 80 miles from NZ's home of curling) - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:15 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Barbara's question Quail: > I am not saying she shouldn't comment on it; I am saying that she shouldn't > expect to be taken seriously unless she can really bring something to the > table other than her uninformed, ill-considered opinions. She undermines > herself with her naivety and prejudices. So from your POV she shoots herself in her own foot. Why bother to even point that out if it is so self-evident? Argue the points to the best of your ability, fine, but labels of "naive" are bordering on the personal. > No, I am not a father. And I realize that it will change my life in ways I > cannot understand. But I am not prepared to suggest that it will radically > alter my politics, nor suddenly render me unable to articulate any > sophisticated political ideas. Well, having kids (in concert with the parallel process of aging and, often, success) does change peoples' politics all the time. Maybe it won't happen to you; sure didn't happen to me. But it can change your view of political processes as well as your core beliefs themselves. It's generally not wise to predict how parenthood, success, loss of a loved one, or any other massive life change will affect one. In the case I cited, I don't think I was rendered any less articulate by being a parent, but I know that the primary things that occupied my mind were of a different emotional timbre than they would've been a year earlier. Yeah, I'm drifting from the topic here. > Those are both valid; but when people have a debate online that I am *not* a > part of, I enjoy reading both sides and exploring my own opinions on the > subject, if any. It helps define and refine my own beliefs. That makes sense, as long as the argument being observed doesn't turn personal, which it usually does... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:44:29 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: The Decemberists' gear >From: Jill Brand >Subject: The Decemberists' gear >Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:43:50 -0500 (EST) >Jill, who wonders if she will brave a Decemberists gig alone in May, where >she will be about 20 years older than anyone else in the audience When I went to see them at the TLA in Philly everyone; with the exception of Kathy and I, looked to be 15. Max ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:29:20 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Back to music Dolph: > There are artists with just one defining song. However, it's > difficult for me to name examples because I tend to prefer > artists who give me a series of songs and ideas instead of > just one. There are also (and this is probably obvious) artists whose defining song to the public at large is hardly definitive of their work as a whole, or to their fans (cf. Blowin' In The Wind, Balloon Man). And conversely artists who don't want to believe that their big hit is their definitive song, when it probably is... > -- Dolph > whose thoughts about music, his and otherwise, are largely > herded over onto his blog at > so as not to > offend, though some of you might like to know he is readying > an EP... Cool. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:14:02 -0800 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Barbara's question Jeff wrote: > > Okay, then, but (and this is also a sincere question), why else *does* > > one do it? Thinking out loud to reinforce one's own opinions? Making > > those opinions a matter of public record? > > Well, even if you it's unlikely that you achieve a slamdunk, > instant-decision conversion of opinion of the person you're arguing > with, it's also true that people's minds do change - and that those > changes tend to be influenced by argument. I don't think I can point > to any single, definitive source that caused me instantly to change my > mind - and yet, over time I've changed my mind on many things, in some > cases pretty radically. And I know part of the reason is stuff I've > read or arguments I've had. I think this really nails it. Public debates are about vetting opinions and educating those who participate. Often, there is a determination of who has won the day, but that doesn't mean that he (or she) who has won the day has converted everyone to their opinion in lockstep. Education, especially on complex topics, takes a lot of time and a lot of give and take to really understand what a right answer is. That said, one thing I have noticed in general and about the political discussions on this list in particular is that many of them seem to be about flapping gums in accordance on some leftist "conventional wisdom" about how people on the right are haters, villains, killers, or assorted other mean and nasty folks while using this sort of ad hominem argument as a reason to dismiss positions on the right as invalid. Yes, I know folks on the right do that too (Rush Limbaugh?), but those folks don't seem to really populate this list. As a libertarian, I find the intolerance of the tolerant left quite amusing and disturbing at the same time. I think the original quote that really bowled me over in this was "Then I learned about the existence of people like Ann Coulter, predatory ladies with vengence in their hearts and the bloodlust dripping from their sweet mouths." While in the end, it would probably be correct to say that Ann Coulter is quite forceful in stating her position as a right-winger, predatory? "Bloodlust dripping from [her] sweet mouth" as if she were some sort of raving animal beneath contempt? So what does that mean if she actually states something that you agree with when the opinion has been already been dismissed as animal rantings? I must say, this is sort of read on a person pretty much ensures a lack of tolerance or open-mindedness going forward. After all, Ann Coulter might be a staunch Republican, but I seriously doubt she is motivated by bloodlust any more than Al Franken is motivated by bloodlust. I would strongly suggest that both of them are motivated by the exact same things: strongly held beliefs and a knowledge that packaging them in a forceful way is a way to make a profit. > More importantly, the process of working through argument clarifies > (not just, or even, reinforces already-held opinions) - and I think > that's of value. About a year ago, I had an extensive argument (some > of it here, I think, much of it offlist) with someone here (Marc > Alberts?) on economic issues. That was me. > I doubt either of us changed the other's > mind - but at least for me, having to deal with the substantive points > he brought up forced me to clarify and think through my own > perspectives on the issues - and to me that's always valuable. That > argument wasn't (to me) acrimonious - although I'm sure there were > moments in which sarcasm was involved - and that makes a huge > difference. It wasn't acrimonious on my side at all. I think we had a nice debate, actually, even if it got too long for either of us to really pay enough attention to it in the end. > Passion, I can understand - but there's a difference > between forcefully making a point, and forcibly inserting one's > opinion directly into the gut of your opponent - esp. when that > opinion is suddenly about the sexual performance of the opponent's > mother, sister, pet goat, etc. Hear hear! People shouldn't be afraid to forcibly state their opinion and be willing to back it up. However, what kind of started this was a bit of a moonbat (the local phrase for folks who believe our governor's election clearly decided a winner, aka naoveti) comment that really came across as "I'll state my opinion forcibly and then cover my ears shouting "na na na na na na" until you leave me alone" sort of thing. That really doesn't do anyone any good at all, and I think honestly (with all due respects to Rex's position that no one here really can determine just who is naove and who is not) that there really is something that we can point to as naove and do so justifiably and we can really determine if that is the case. Or maybe I am just naove? Marc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #70 *******************************