A couple of requests.
First, a request to stop discussing global warming here. I have an
opinion, which some of you know, which I've discussed with friends
actively doing research in the field. My opinion doesn't matter.
This mailing list is primarily for issues concerning the Libertarian Party
of San Francisco. While the Board of Supervisors would like to think that
they can change the entire world e.g. by banning plastic bags, they can't.
Global warming - or the lack thereof - is a global issue. Please take
debates on the subject to less local- and party-oriented discussion fora.
This is not an official request (I'm not an officer!), but a friendly one.
Secondly, a request for a more polite tone. I'm not going to pretend this
is impersonal; Clay, your tone has been hostile and combative repeatedly
since your return to San Francisco, and I'm tired of it. I've started
skipping your messages, but Robert "Marge" Parkhurst wrote:
I thought the Libertarian Party was more open minded than the Dems or the
Republicans in that they liked to discuss ideas from all sides and not put
people down . So I was surprised that brokenladder is more interested
in stopping the discussion by indicating that I must be stupid when he
wrote to me: "Do you understand why that is such a horrendously poor
argument? Apparently not."
I would like to have people in this lpsf discussion group discuss their
differing ideas with respect rather than put-downs.
If your tone is driving people away from the list, it is a problem.
When someone disagrees with you, consider what your goals are. Do you
want to debate them and win so as to convince the audience? Or do you
want to convert them to your point of view? In either case, politeness
helps; taking the high ground will gain points with an audience, for a
start. And if you want to convince your reader - which you appear to -
you would do much better to seek out common ground and then expand it,
rather than belittling or insulting them.
This style of debate is a common problem for libertarians in general - as
we are frequently so very sure that we are right, and frustrated when
others can't see as clearly - but the LPSF fora have been mercifully free
of this tenor for a long time. I am not eager to see that change.
~Chris
With respect to Chris' second request I agree
completely.
I rarely engage in the debates on the list (lack of
time) but I do follow them. I've been really upset by
Clay's hostile tone with respect to issues in which he
has been participating. One of the great things about
the lpsf-discuss list has been the civil tone no
matter what the disagreements. I'd like to see it
remain so. We want to encourage discussion.
With respect to the plastic bag issue, it's more
complicated. I agree that global warming is a global
issue and not a city issue. The problem is that the
Supes have made it a local issue by banning plastic
bags. I don't think we're going to change that, but
perhaps we would be more productively addressing that
issue by looking at what incentives could be made
available by city government to businesses to change
the bags they provide.
Francoise
--- "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:
A couple of requests.
First, a request to stop discussing global warming
here. I have an
opinion, which some of you know, which I've
discussed with friends
actively doing research in the field. My opinion
doesn't matter.
This mailing list is primarily for issues concerning
the Libertarian Party
of San Francisco. While the Board of Supervisors
would like to think that
they can change the entire world e.g. by banning
plastic bags, they can't.
Global warming - or the lack thereof - is a global
issue. Please take
debates on the subject to less local- and
party-oriented discussion fora.
This is not an official request (I'm not an
officer!), but a friendly one.
Secondly, a request for a more polite tone. I'm not
going to pretend this
is impersonal; Clay, your tone has been hostile and
combative repeatedly
since your return to San Francisco, and I'm tired of
it. I've started
skipping your messages, but Robert "Marge" Parkhurst
wrote:
> I thought the Libertarian Party was more open
minded than the Dems or the
> Republicans in that they liked to discuss ideas
from all sides and not put
> people down . So I was surprised that
brokenladder is more interested
> in stopping the discussion by indicating that I
must be stupid when he
> wrote to me: "Do you understand why that is such
a horrendously poor
> argument? Apparently not."
> I would like to have people in this lpsf
discussion group discuss their
> differing ideas with respect rather than
put-downs.
If your tone is driving people away from the list,
it is a problem.
When someone disagrees with you, consider what your
goals are. Do you
want to debate them and win so as to convince the
audience? Or do you
want to convert them to your point of view? In
either case, politeness
helps; taking the high ground will gain points with
an audience, for a
start. And if you want to convince your reader -
which you appear to -
you would do much better to seek out common ground
and then expand it,
rather than belittling or insulting them.
This style of debate is a common problem for
libertarians in general - as
we are frequently so very sure that we are right,
and frustrated when
others can't see as clearly - but the LPSF fora have
been mercifully free
of this tenor for a long time. I am not eager to
see that change.
~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd
"I remain cheerful and unimpressed." ~Robert Anton
Wilson
<URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52
F825 AFEC 58DA
Francoise Fielding
820 Stanyan Street,#5
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-386-8643