did it again - didn't i .... oh well. david rhaesa
-- BEGIN included message
- To: dhn2@COLUMBIA.EDU
- Subject: Re: ans Parcher
- From: RACE --- <race@midusa.net>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 07:41:13 -0500
- References: <199705240408.XAA06812@services.midusa.net>
Daniel Hugh Nexon wrote: > > And I'd also appreciate it if those who wish to enlighten us poor plebians > would not assert that they have unique knowledge of "counterplan theory" > and that the rest of us are simply "out of it," it really poisons the > atmosphere. please amend a previous post of mine to say "re-think, re-learn, and re-teach" instead of merely "re-teach" in light of this comment. point well taken. i'm more than willing to discuss the inherently pessimistic rhetoric of economics at length with anyone. It seems that cost and benefit are not opposites but different angles on the same point. both ultimately collapse to qualitative notions of value. i don't want to get myself going on this. opportunity cost as a metaphor for understanding competition may be useful, but argumentation theory need not be bound by the normal science of the economists nor their language. re-read Branham's spring 89 article on opportunity costs and counterplans during the timeouts of the Houston victory. then thought about the thread a bit and decided that the distinctions between the terms costs and benefits here is practically meaningless. >
-- END included message