Paul,

My apologies but my Yahoo email program truncates
anything more than a relatively brief (by your
standards) replication of the original message,
evidence to wit is provided below. I try not to use an
external word processor because it tends to insert
hard line breaks which can make an email uncomfortable
to read.

(extracted from the end of this email for example)
> Still, I have already described and admitted the
> potential "advantage"
> in weight of argument that the original message
> commenting
=== message truncated ===



Beyond this, there still remains in my mind (and in
your responses) the greater issue of whether discourse
is more or less coherent when the participants resort
exclusively to in line commenting. Too much
digression, by which I mean breaking or leaving the
cohesive presentation of an argument or concept when
one interjects a response to a portion of that
argument, can lead in my opinion to intellectual
anarchy. Let me explain what I mean by that.

If the motive for in line commenting is to force the
argument's predicates into a rigorous examination
preemptive to the reader's consideration of the
entirety of the argument, I would claim that the merit
of doing so must be based on whether the predicate's
flaw (by some relativistic measure) is so egregious
that it preempts the consideration of the greater
argument and demands that it (the predicate) be
considered first. Your example of a mistake in the
units of measure is a good example of such an
egregious error.

But on the other hand, if the intention of in line
commenting is to apply a rigorous examination of each
and every predicate in an argument in concert with
(and as validation of) the relative merits of the
overarching argument it can become a tedious exercise
at best, and threatens to distill the audience to only
those with the fortitude for such discourse. I realize
that this claim opens me to the criticism that I am
derelict in effort and as such do not deserve the high
hung fruit that I have eschewed.

A claim of "sour grapes" is not my intent, however,
because I do believe that judicious use of
interjecting in line comments can enlighten rather
than diffuse the consideration of an argument, The
heart of the matter being the application of
"judicious". For this let's consider that one is
building a home.

While every owner and contractor would wish that each
and every nail, and each and every board is properly
applied to the structure, the fact of life is that
rarely (if ever) is such perfection of means achieved.
Yet this does not necessarily preempt the notable end
of constructing a worthy home. In fact few laborers or
subcontractors would work for long under the intensity
of a review of each nail stroke and each saw cut.
(Carried to the extreme this supervisory behavior
turns into obsessive-compulsive disorder.) If this
home building example can be carried back to our topic
of discourse it suggests that too much interjection in
an intellectual discussion will lead towards this
state of intellectual anarchy where the attempt to
appease a desire to articulate many predicates to an
argument will in the end depreciate the objective of
enlightening discourse, which I consider to be to the
useful and intelligent weighing of that argument.

It was my belief that your change in policy was an
acknowledgment of the tendency of excessive
interjection to so depreciate your ultimate objective
of evolving a better understanding of life's health
issues and factors that effect them.

If I were to have expressed my argument here as in
line commenting and interdictions to your in line
response to my original email, I believe it would
drown it in a sea of minutia, each of which might be
well intended to clarify but in the whole would
devolve the entire sense of what we are about to not
much more than unintelligible noise. That said, I
should restate that I do believe the judicious use of
in line commenting is useful where predicates are
important enough to merit their separate
consideration, and for minor clarification. I strongly
disagree that should be used as a replacement for a
coherent rebuttal to a complex argument.

You, Paul, and the others who assist you, and the
group's many posters have provided me valuable insight
and information on health topics, and I appreciate
this. The comments in my previous email were intended
to applaud your desire to use the best possible means
of achieving this and to acknowledge what I have long
believed: that a more judicious use of in line
comments might improve this goal.

If I have "pontificated" here once again, or in my
inartful writing, led you to believe my intention is
to "smear" you, please accept my apologies. That is
not my intent. While it would be easy to let one's ego
become involved in these "discussions", I find that
your rigorous approach to virtually all things you do
and say, (that you make visible to us here), has
inspired me to try and pay more attention to the
accuracy of word usage and the coherence of arguments,
not to mention the solid application of common sense.
Nor do I want to appear fawning because there remain a
few vigorous disagreements between you and I with
regard to how to appreciate my anecdotal experience on
a couple of health topics. I offer this in the hope
that I can be of some use in furthering your own
objectives for this group, and as an admission that I
and my arguments are very far from any measure of
perfection.

Best regards,
Don Carpenter

P.S. I think you have made some strong points in some
of your in line comments on my first email that
deserve to be elevated to singular discussions, and I
will try and respond as concisely and coherently as I
can to those, unless you, as moderator, believe that
this might lead the discussion too far afield of the
group's objectives.

--- Paul Antonik Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

> In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Don Carpenter"
> <parc2222@...> wrote:
>
> > I applaud your new moderation policy and believe
> it will go a long
> > way towards relieving you of the self-assumed
> obligation to protect
> > all from every harm (as you see them).
>
> If you had replied inline instead of pontificating
> on what you
> *thought* that I said, meant and had been doing,
> then it would be
> clear to all that you are misinterpreting what I
> said about harm and
> have actually been doing. I was merely talking about
> the acute harm
> that could be done by following some recommendation
> that could cause
> physiological harm quite quickly (such as taking 200
> mg of selenium
> instead of 200 mcg - or drinking 2 gallons of water
> within two hours).
> It is these sorts of harmful suggestions that I was
> concerned about,
> particularly since when they appear on *my* group
> they have *my*
> credibility behind them. I will still be moderating
> such things within
> a message before it appears.
>
>
> >There is much to be said for discourse as a means
> to evolve truth
> > rather than to cement this medium into a one-way
> contortion,
>
> Truth is not something which evolves, except as
> something which can
> evolve changes its nature and therefore the
> statements about it which
> are true also change.
> However, I have never censored any discourse as you
> appear to imply. I
> have seen little such attempt at discourse from you
> before.
> The logic of my arguments is strong enough that it
> does not need any
> advantage of posting within the same message. And I
> find your
> characterization of the work that we have been doing
> on this group as
> "a one-way contortion" to be very insulting.
>
>
> > becoming in effect a rod used to predicate the
> teacher's truth as a
> > means to protect all from the alternative.
>
> There is no similarity whatever between the use of
> physical force via
> a "rod" and the use of reasoned argument even when
> presented within
> the same message as the opposing statements.
> Teaching need not and correctly should not have any
> relationship to
> protection.
>
>
> >I believe we are endowed with the right to
> self-destruct if we so choose,
>
> Your *beliefs* are of no interest to any other
> rational person, what
> you think and why *is* of interest.
> I will assume that your "we" refers to all humans
> and by "endowed" you
> mean "attribute" or "characteristic" since that is
> all that any
> existent can have. Therefore "we are endowed with"
> can only logically
> mean "all humans have the attribute .."
> The concept of rights is without any referent in
> reality. Therefore a
> "right" is not an attribute that anything can have,
> not even a human.
> "Self-destruct" is well-defined and yes, I certainly
> agree that all
> humans have self-destruction among their available
> actions (ie. within
> their freedom) and are thus able to choose to do it.
>
>
> >after having been sufficiently warned of the
> consequences.
>
> The entire purpose of my in-message moderator
> comments was to so
> sufficiently warn people of the consequences.
>
>
> >(Now if we can only get the legal community to
> adopt a similar
> > philosophy and free ourselves from rapacious tort
> litigation.)
>
> It is not the legal community that is at fault,
> since they have no
> power of the legal use of force to get what they
> want. The fault lies
> with the government, its courts and the enforcers
> who do their
> bidding. As long as these enforcers exist then there
> will be people
> who use them to their narrow-sighted, short-term
> advantage.
>
>
> > It is clear that you and Kitty work
> conscientiously to provide
> > accurate helpful facts and enlightening opinions.
> Perhaps the
> > criticism you, Paul, have received rests more on
> your taking a
> > position of relative omnipotence and righteousness
> (well intended
> > to be sure),
>
> I do not see any way that making well reasoned
> arguments relates to
> omnipotence unless the reader agrees that those
> arguments do, in fact,
> overpower the arguments of all others. In other
> words, omnipotence,
> without the use of physical force, is entirely in
> the eye of the
> beholder and is without fault to the one who is
> omnipotent. OTOH, I
> most certainly am not omnipotent and never have
> implied that I think I
> am. Besides your statement without examples is
> effectively a smear.
>
> By "righteousness" I will take it that you mean
> "thinking that one is
> right and/or trying one's best to be right". If so,
> then I take that
> as a high compliment. The other meaning could be
> "constantly telling
> others what they should or should not think or do",
> which is something
> that I have been guilty of in the past (although
> never "constantly")
> but am trying very hard not to do anymore. If you
> notice any place
> where I slip up then please point out that specific
> instance.
>
>
> > and thrusting this dagger-like into the meat of an
> extended comment,
>
> Once again I must totally reject this metaphor that
> attempts to find a
> similarity between the physical force of a dagger
> thrust and the use
> of reasoned word arguments.
>
>
> > as though it were some conscious effort to impugn
> the poster's
> > proposition preemptively rather than let it be
> considered intact and
> > then responded to on its strengths and demerits as
> a whole.
>
> My comments in the original were never intended "to
> impugn the
> poster's proposition preemptively", but only to
> combine the post with
> a substantive and necessary reply for the following
> reasons:
> a) Because that is why many people are reading this
> group - in order
> to see and get value from my, Kitty's and now
> Olafur's comments.
> b) Doing so reduced the number of messages that
> needed to be archived
> and that people would receive. And reduced the
> amount of duplicated
> text that was necessary.
> c) Doing so made each message more complete and
> useful.
> d) Doing so indicates the power and usefulness of
> the inline method of
> comments (which apparently Don has yet to understand
> and to learn).
>
> Still, I have already described and admitted the
> potential "advantage"
> in weight of argument that the original message
> commenting
=== message truncated ===