Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:28:12 -0700 Subject: Re: FYI: KQED's Forum to Discusss Online "Piracy" Today (7/30) at 9:00 am From: Philip J. Koenig Organization: The Ekahuna Organization Newsgroups: ba.internet In article , spamfilter0 @navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes... > [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > In on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:53:33 > -0700, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > >In article , spamfilter0 > >@navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes... > > >> >The wrong-headedness of this entire mentality is that there is > >> >something fundamentally wrong with a publicly-funded institution > >> >whose sole purpose is to benefit society by providing a divergent, > >> >thoughtful and independent voice. No one is willing to spend a > >> >dime of their own or the public's money on this kind of thing, and > >> >the all-powerful corporate lobbyists spare no effort to kill or > >> >undermine them. > >> > > >> >No, in today's America, there is no such thing as contributing to > >> >the common good - if you want to be a charitable institution you'd > >> >better find a good profitable business-model. Paying continuous > >> >homage to your corporate masters is a good start. > >> > >> Whatever -- the battle has been fought and lost, > > > >Unlike you, I don't give up so easily. > > I don't give up. I do live in the real world. Usenet debate lesson #15: Whenever someone uses as the excuse for their position that they "live in the real world", laugh at them. Basically what they want is their cake and eat it too: they're trying to throw you a bone because they really can't discount your well-reasoned position, so they triangulate by not providing any contradicting evidence or logic, only the cop-out that even if your argument is sound, it can't work in their convenient version of "the real world". Essentially they're not saying anything. Or they're an ideological wimp. > Unless and until this is changed, so-called public broadcasting > must do likewise, or it will cease to exist. Is that what > you want? Usenet debate lesson #16: Example: "If we were to do as you propose, millions of starving Ethiopians would die, and their blood would be on your hands. How shameful!" In such cases, usually their assertions are either incorrect, or wildly irresponsible. However, that isn't the point. By focusing on their artificially manufactured "end-result", they attempt to divert attention from debating the real issues, while trying to focus on painting their rhetorical opponent as some kind of an insensitive monster. Don't take the bait. > >That this group frequently > > You now speak for "this group?" That's a new low (and a big leap). Usenet debate lesson #17: Oftentimes people will digress into silly insubstantial criticisms which serve no real purpose, such as "You said 'trooper', and I know that means 'storm trooper', which really means you were thinking about saying 'Nazi' which means you're evil and must be stopped!" Don't fall for this either, they're grasping at straws because their argument has broken down. Sometimes this is combined with the type of response seen in lesson #16, a general attempt at devolution into sophomoric character assassination. Don't fall for it. > >finds you defending the unrestricted right of companies to make > >money (more or less) ... > > That's pure libel, as I suspect you know (in your heart at least). Usenet debate lesson #18N: This lesson has the suffix "N" as it was named for John Navas, its most infamous practictioner. This is when someone decides, after running out of useful things to say, that you are engaging in "libel" because of how you describe their position. Forget that the vast majority of people in society having a discussion in public with other individuals never use this terminology, it is usually reserved for public-figures and representatives of institutions who think someone in the press unfairly characterized them. When individuals deign to use such terminology, it usually means that they have an inflated sense of their own fame or belovedness amongst the public, and by not showing them proper belovedness, you have somehow harmed their golden public-standing and marketability. This is a tactic that also deserves laughter, because it is truly funny how important people that use it view themselves. > For shame, Philip, for shame. You're becoming ever more shrill > and strident, and seem to be losing basic respect and dignity. Usenet debate lesson #19: This is a variation of lesson #17, but simpler. In this tactic, the poster dispenses with the pre-condition of 'what' makes you a monster, s/he just proclaims you a monster. Generally, not worth paying attention or responding to. Navas corrolary: John understands this tactic from both sides of the fence, because even though he likes to use it himself, if anyone uses it on him he will immediately snip the relevant comments out (so no one can get a chance to re-read it in context with his reply), insert an editorialized, simplified version in quotes so he can spin the original statement as desired, and then essentially accuse the poster in the same way they were accusing him. ("you're a monster")