Language & Argumentation

[Glenn Ellingson <gellings@niu.edu>]

I don't have the time to participate in a lengthy debate on this subject 
(sorry if that souds like a cop-out, but it's my truth...), but I did 
want to say just 2 things about my earlier post on recommendations or 
list discourse, for the sake of clarity:

1. I believe David misconstrued my post. I am not the "obscenity police". 
In fact, my language choices are often "improper", and when I'm upset 
they are not very creative, either. I believe that my earlier post was 
fairly clear: I argue that people should make personal effort toward 
composing strong and purposive on-point arguments. And, that doing so in 
a less-confrontative manner would also be good. I am much more concerned 
with structure than language, and I stand by my convictions in thais 
area. I havn't yet heard a good argument why we should use bad arguments. 
Then again, maybe that would be paradoxical; I'm too trapped in my 
modernist, western mindset to see other truths... we all have our limits. 
Yuri's may be fiding answers to anthro, mine may be in my failure to see 
past the corncob up my butt :-).

2. Thanks to David for the reasoned responses to my list (the second time 
around). I don't agree with all that you say, but I think it's more 
productive than the first time around. If i wasn't rather woefully behind 
on my work for my summer employer, and if the topic discussion wasn't 
more relevant & interesting anyway if I did have time to spend (i.e. 
you're right David this thing really isn't that important and should 
probably be left to die) I'd be happy to discuss at greater length. 

Later all,
Glenn

---

• Prev by Date: Re: swearing good
• Next by Date: Re: swearing good
• Prev by thread: air pollutants topic
• Next by thread: swearing good
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page