I've found it useful and rewarding to interpret messages such that
I would agree with them. Sometimes it takes more effort, and sometimes
it leads to misinterpretation, but generally it is a good strategy.
>Really, it wasn't a conscious choice as much as a reaction to how they
>first struck me. I suppose I could have mulled them over, trying to figure
>out what you really meant, or simply asked for clarification. But neither
>action would have been necessary had you fleshed out your point more in the
>first place.
What criteria do *you* use to decide when enough is enough :)
>>My point is that it is not necessarily stupid to advocate something that
>>goes against some part of "human nature" (whatever that is).
>
>Ah, now this I both understand and agree with. But I also agree with what
>(I think) Tim P. was saying: that some parts of human nature are difficult
>enough to fight against that your agenda might be better served by
>leveraging off of or subverting them in some way than in opposing them
>directly.
Agreed, but not in this case. Consider:
"Stop the violence or I'll kill you!"
"Trust me when I say trust no-one."
"God told me to tell you to question authority."
It is of little use (other than maybe for humor and zen koans) to send a
message that undermines itself.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/