BE:
-The  mere  fact  that someone does not provide supporting argument
-for a certain statement does not show that the statement is viewed
-by him as incorrigible or as a dogma.  He may be assuming that you
-know what the argument is; maybe  he  just  forgot  to  state  the
-argument; he may have stated something so outrageous as to inspire
-the  reader  to  view  it  as  a dogma (when in fact it was only a
-mistake) and thus  reveal  himself  to  be  uncritical  (a  common
-Holysmoke  ploy);  or  maybe he really didn't have an argument and
-merely sent off a message in first draft, not really committed  to
-the statement on subsequent examination.
>   Bob,  I  sense  that  you  are intellectually VERY honest and I
>understand your dilemma because you evidently have a great deal of
>regard for Rice.
No,  I  think this is a mistake.  Rice and his colleagues (such as
Hitt, Kimes, Voigt, Bandsma, Smith, Goldberg, Martin  and  a  half
dozen  others)  were  the  ones  who  loaded  me  down  this  past
January-February with a lot foul language, insults and ad hominems
over in HS, when I criticised them in no uncertain terms for using
foul language, etc, and for  using  a  prejudicial  definition  of
Atheism.  My opinion of these people is that, although they are of
above-average  intelligence  and  knowledge, they generally suffer
from below-average conversational and debating ethics.  This  fact
causes their forum to have an unnecessarily poor reputation.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason why people  should  copy
their morality.
>The only reason I raised  the  question  in  the
>first  place was that I've encountered him before and I assure you
>that he doesn't allow anybody else NEARLY the latitude you believe
>should be allowed to him.  I don't wish to continue to beat a dead
>horse now that  you  have  acknowledged  that  Rice  DID  make  an
>unwarranted assumption of fact (and he did it deliberately about a
>subject in which he is obviously VERY passionate).  We all DO make
>assumptions  about the level of knowledge and intelligent of those
>with whom we're conversing.   I've  just  found  Mr.   Rice  quite
>unforgiving  of  the  slightest  lapses in others which he readily
>forgives in himself.  I once followed the convention of  referring
>to  Sigmund  Freud as a genius in his time and was subjected to an
>almost endless spate of stalking and abuse by Rice and Gordon  for
>DARING  to  use  such  a  term  with regard to Freud.  I never any
>longer go NEAR the Skeptic echo but they  followed  me  around  to
>continue  the abuse and to show everybody else what a dummy I was.
>One does tire of such things.  I also stay clear of  the  juvenile
>debates on Holysmoke.
Don't  let  it  bother you.  The thing to do is keep a level head,
maintain control over one's own behaviour, demonstrate by  example
the  superiority  of  following the proper rules of communication,
ignore messages that have  no  substance,  refuse  to  acknowledge
insults except by pointing out who makes them, make sure one's own
messages are not completely insubstantial, etc.
That's my point of view on  this  subject.   You  don't  go  about
improving  the  quality  of debate by letting your own style slip.
And, in my  estimation,  you  have  generally  good  debating  and
conversational  style.
Incidentally, when I get time next  month,  I'm  going  back  into
Holysmoke  to  continue  my crusade .  Maybe you'd like to join
me.  Those people need to be saved, rescued from their errors.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------