[EM] Request re. Acronym Use on this list

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 01/21/2013 03:31 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> I do not spend enough time following this subject to memorize all the acronyms.
>
> Could posters to this list please make your emails comprehensible to
> someone like myself by spelling out the words comprising the acronym
> when it is first used in each and every email to the list?

I try to explain my acronym use when I use them. The latest I remember 
where I didn't, was where I said "PM", which was short for Prime Minister.

If I forget to explain my acronyms at some point, just let me know.

> Also, in  response to those using their kill filters to avoid hearing
> points of view not compatible with their own and who are making
> general non-specific personal attacks against other members of this
> list without constructively providing the specific details of their
> complaints -- your actions reveal to people on this list more about
> yourself -- what you are projecting onto others that are, in truth,
> your own characteristics -- than they do about the people you
> criticize.   I have lived long enough to observe that when people
> lacking in intellectual integrity (lacking willingness to admit
> mistakes and openmindedly reconsider their own positions) lack a
> credible argument to support their positions, they often make personal
> attacks against those who factually rebut their positions.  Why not
> agree that we all make intellectual mistakes by adopting incorrect or
> logically flawed positions at times (ideally temporarily) and be
> open-minded and intellectually honest enough to continually question
> our own point of view?   If we all try our best to act in a way we can
> be proud of afterwards, no matter what anyone else does or says, there
> is no reason to make vague, unsubstantiated personal attacks in order
> to justify our own behavior or position.  I try to follow the maxim:
> "To be terrific, be specific" when I make a criticism, so that it is
> constructive.

Ideally, the way a person presents his argument shouldn't matter as to 
whether it is considered true or not. I know that assuming that a 
conclusion is wrong just because there's a logical fallacy in it 
somewhere is in itself a fallacy; and that considering an argument wrong 
because the person proposing it is logically rude is also an example of 
logical rudeness.

However, in the practical world, presentation *does* matter. In the 
ideal world, personal attacks would be replied to by something like 
"okay, you think that I am an Obama supporter even though I am not, but 
whether I am or not is irrelevant to the discussion, so can we continue 
with what we're discussing?". But in the real, practical world, it 
doesn't work like that. At least to me, if the discussion is constantly 
tripped up by personal attacks by the other party, or by crude 
comparisons or fallacies or logically rude statements (unfalsifiable 
explanations for my behavior, say), then it becomes a chore to have to 
push the discussion back on track again and again. Furthermore, if what 
I'm saying is being misinterpreted, it's also a lot of work trying to 
show what I really meant, again and again. At some point it's no longer 
worth it.

Logically speaking, whether or not one puts another person on a killfile 
has nothing to say about the correctness of that person's arguments. It 
is instead, I think, something one resorts to when the other person 
breaks common protocol. It's a way of saying "that's it, we're not going 
to get anything more out of discussing and you're just going to annoy me 
further"; and when done publically, also a way of saying "I think, and I 
will let other know, that you're out of line".

Perhaps another person could represent the objections in a better 
manner. For instance, whether voters actually need FBC to be deterred 
from making strategy that destroys a voting method could be an 
interesting question. I don't think the evidence suggests this. Someone 
else might disagree. But when the person disagreeing specially-pleads 
away the evidence that might support my point, and then starts with 
unfalsifiable explanations for why supporters of methods that fail FBC 
support such methods, then it's no longer worth it. Surely the person 
could, for instance, reply that I'm just engaging in a particularly 
sophisticated and verbose version of denial, but that's just another 
unfalsifiable and thus it's not worth it to reply to that, either.

Any use of language involves translation from meaning to words on the 
one end and from words to intent on the other. If the message degrades 
too much in the process of being translated back into meaning, then it's 
like talking to a wall. At some point, one finds out life's too short!