On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:
> >
> > Arguing over semantics, repeatedly, does that sometimes. I would guess
> > he's just disgusted at the entire argument and would rather see it die.
>
> George, I have a point other than semantics. How would you suggest
> arguing with Daniel? I'm intereted in hearing the answer, because
> I have found him to completely ignore the meaning behind my words,
> to call names (which he has been doing since the beginning of this
> thread), and to basically restate things you've already agreed
> with. How do you handle someone who will not address your points?
>
I would make sure that it is more than just semantics that you
disagree about. I was always suspected that he agrees with you
point other than the semantics, and thus ignores it because the
only point in contention is the semantic point. Most people do
not care to argue against a point they agree with. :)
So hopefully this question can clear everything up for Andrew:
Daniel, do you believe that anything that frustrates the players, but
not enough to make them leave, is automatically a good thing?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
-Hans H Hjort
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST