Re: OT fallacies
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:27:07 +0200
On 2006-06-04 20:48:56 +0200, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> said:
> Imagine that someone joins to a medicine group and starts to write that
> promiscuous sex without protection is completely safe, presenting
> evidently ridiculous and tricked arguments.
Yes, I accept responsibility for that. I have just started using a new
news-reader, and I wasn't aware that the article I was responding to
was cross posted. Only after the firestorm started did I realize that
I had barged into someone elses territory waving a red flag.
> Which kind of responses would you expect?
Respect. Not agreement. Not acceptance. But respectful argument. Something like:
"Wow, that's completely contrary to everything I know to be true. Could you explain yourself more clearly? Here's why I think you are wrong..."
> What Martin and others write in comp.object is nearly as foolish as
I understand that my words appear foolish to you. Do you understand that I have trouble agreeing with your position too? We are not stupid people. We are here because we want to understand more about our industry. To do that requires discussion with people we disagree with. Insults stop the discussion.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 18:27:07 CEST