<html>
<body>
At 07:18 AM 12/27/2005, Harvey wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">What in the world are you trying
to accomplish? Seriously, I don't understand. Besides the
fact that some people find it fun to argue, and that they insist on doing
so in front of an nonconsensual audience, what does arguing accomplish
that rational discourse without arguing does not? What do the new
rules accomplish that the old rules did not? I really don't know
what "problem" you are trying to solve. Can somebody
please define *why* was want to encourage arguing as opposed to
discussion without arguing?</blockquote><br>
First let me state that politics is not banned on this list.<br><br>
Second let me state that arguing is not an unhealthy exercise.
<a href="http://www.blonnet.com/life/2002/10/07/stories/2002100700120200.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.blonnet.com/life/2002/10/07/stories/2002100700120200.htm</a>
Arguing, in fact, is sought out by world-class thinkers who accept
arguing as a way to clean the waters and allow hidden resentments to
flush.
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/arguing/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.pbs.org/arguing/</a> Further, arguing a point ought to
be a skilled process
<a href="http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/units/argument/home.html" eudora="autourl">
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/units/argument/home.html<br>
<br>
</a>Third, with these two points in mind, I think that there is more
senseless political argumentation in the world than productive,
intelligent discussions where actual resolution is made through the
ability of people to solve problems and apply creative alternatives to
problems.<br><br>
I have to say that I agree with Harvey, as I too do not understand why
anyone on this list would perpetuate irrational argumentative commentary
when constructive discussion is suggested and promoted by ExI.<br><br>
Natasha<br><br><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Cultural Strategist - Designer
<dd>Future Studies, University of Houston
<dd>President, <a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy Institute</a>
<dd>Member, <a href="http://www.profuturists.com/">Association of
Professional Futurists</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a>
<dd>Honorary Vice-Chair, <a href="http://transhumanism.org/">World
Transhumanist Association</a>
<dd>Senior Associate, <a href="http://foresight.org/">Foresight
Institute</a>
<dd>Advisor, <a href="http://alcor.org/">Alcor Life Extension
Foundation</a><br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective.
</i>
<dd>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>