| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1189.1 | | CNTROL::DGAUTHIER | | Mon Dec 04 1995 09:14 | 15 |
| When you play to "beat" someone, you lose, no matter what the outcome.
"Wining" by "beating" diminishes both you and your opponent. Play to
strengthen each other, not beat each other.
Victory at the expense of a relationship is a loss.
"The best way to vanquish an enemy is to make him your friend"
-A.Lincoln.
And remember...
"Winners need Losers"
-Alan Watts
-dave
|
| 1189.2 | | APACHE::MYERS | He literally meant it figuratively | Mon Dec 04 1995 10:21 | 8 |
|
> What is triumph if an adversary is merely beaten and not won over?
This is my biggest fear with regard to the Bosnia Peace Accord. This
sort of "triumph" only continues if the beating into conformity
continues.
Eric
|
| 1189.3 | | CNTROL::DGAUTHIER | | Mon Dec 04 1995 11:53 | 7 |
| >>This is my biggest fear with regard to the Bosnia Peace Accord...
The only thing that kept war at bay in that area for most of this century
was the presence of the Soviet tanks. And we think we're going to
have better luck because we're waving a NATO flag and stand behind a
politically motivated peace accord designed to make Clinton look good
next November. As long as the hatred remains, their war will remain.
|
| 1189.4 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Dec 04 1995 12:30 | 15 |
| I believe what Bill Clinton is attempting to do is redefine the role of
the military. I believe this will ultimately fail. It is no secret
that Bill Clinton holds disdain for the military. He is trying to
redefine it as a peace keeping branch of the government to integrate it
internationally and to utilize it for peace. Kind of like a police
unit enforcing gun control.
What we fail to see is this. Please don't shoot the messenger here,
but there are bad people in the world, and the military is here to
break things and squash the bad guy. It isn't pallatable but it is
reality. And whether we want to admit it or not, fear of retaliation
keeps bad guys in check. These peace talks came from such an exercise
I might add.
-Jack
|
| 1189.5 | Closer to home, please | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Ps. 85.10 | Mon Dec 04 1995 13:44 | 7 |
| While it's more comfortable to talk about Bosnia because we can hold
it at arm's length, what I hoped would be addressed in this topic is
the importance of winning in notesfile exchanges.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 1189.6 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Dec 04 1995 13:58 | 9 |
| There is no "winning" in notesfile exchanges, unless each participant
learns/grows from the counter arguments (or somehow learns to look at
something from a different perspective).
Getting angry with someone is futile and pointless, though sometimes
aggrivation is an understandable response. 8^)
-steve
|
| 1189.7 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Ps. 85.10 | Mon Dec 04 1995 14:19 | 6 |
| Some do participate in notes with a mindset of winning, I've noticed.
And perhaps all of us do to some degree and at some time or another.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 1189.8 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Dec 04 1995 14:47 | 21 |
| Richard, I don't think it is so much a matter of winning. In fact,
that isn't it at all. When two people can agree to disagree, I can
respect that very much.
What I find aggravating is when somebody is so entrenched in their way
of thinking that dialog is impossible. Bob Fleischer, if I may point
you out Bob, is somebody I enjoy hearing from. Very rarely do we agree
fully on a matter or very rarely are we tag teaming on a certain issue.
What I see from him on a regular basis isn't so much his position on a
matter but his pasting my reply and pointing out the potential flaws.
This shows me the reader (Bob, Eric, Patricia, Whomever) is listening,
takes value in what I write, and at LEAST acknowledges the effort I put
in composing a reply by copying and pasting.
I am not pointing fingers at anybody in particular. I think many of
us do this from time to time.
The old "I don't want to discuss it anymore" line is also wrong. I
consider it inflammatory if it is baseless.
-Jack
|
| 1189.9 | | CNTROL::DGAUTHIER | | Mon Dec 04 1995 15:04 | 18 |
| Dialogue where everyone is in agreement is, at best, stale. Your views
are unchallenged, untested and unproven. Like a soldier that's never
gone to battle.
On the other hand, good dialogue conducted by peoiple with differing
views forces everyone involved to reexamine and perhaps modify their
views, tuning them to be closer to the truth.
What better way is there for a competitive athelete to improve his/her
game than to face stiff competition on the field. What better way it
there to strengthen your understanding of the truth than to argue in
dialogue. It's not necessarily a competition to see who "wins" but it's
often percieved as such.
-dave
|
| 1189.10 | | HURON::MYERS | He literally meant it figuratively | Mon Dec 04 1995 20:21 | 13 |
|
Closer to home...
Sometimes there are subjects, or particular notes, that I just react
to. That hit me in a visceral way as being absolutely counter to what I
hold as right in the eyes of God. Other times (like in the sexism note)
it is a frustration on my part to understand a viewpoint that I don't
fully understand or where I *perceive* a one-sidedness. In these cases
I am not trying to "win" except to the extent that I feel I have made
my point understood. Although I mean no malice, perhaps I don't know
when to let go.
Eric
|
| 1189.11 | | CNTROL::DGAUTHIER | | Tue Dec 05 1995 08:50 | 12 |
| Hmmmm..... I suppose there are two approaches to dealing with
viewpoints which differ radically from your own. There's the "live and
let live" approach as most have adopted here (including myself). But
what if someone is professing a point of view which can be percieved
as destructive? An example which will raise the dander of more than a
few would be a satanist, standing on a soapbox speaking out against
Christianity... as a group of children stand by listening. You can
shrug your shoulders and agree to disagree, but the damage is being
done in the meantime. In a case such as this, is "winning" a debate
an important thing to do? At least in the eyes of the impresionable?
-dave
|
| 1189.12 | | APACHE::MYERS | He literally meant it figuratively | Tue Dec 05 1995 11:16 | 10 |
|
> It is no secret that Bill Clinton holds disdain for the military.
I don't think this is true. I believe Clinton has disdain for militancy,
and a too powerful military *establishment*, but I don't think he
disdains the US armed services, as you suggest. He is no 'hawk' to be
sure, and perhaps in your book that implies disdain for the military,
I'm not sure.
Eric
|
| 1189.13 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Ps. 85.10 | Thu Jan 11 1996 16:08 | 7 |
| Have you ever noticed how comments accompanied by remarks critical of one's
reasoning almost always fail to win the one being criticized over?
Perhaps winning one over is not the point.
Richard
|
| 1189.14 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jan 11 1996 17:06 | 16 |
| Richard:
Speaking for myself, critical remarks I make are a result of
frustration when I continually see the same fallacies and compromises
made. It is a self control problem on my part.
Example: I believe the Bible is a great resource and guide for better
living but John 5:20, Matt 6:33, Romans 10:9...list hundreds of
others...don't count because they don't fit into my agenda...or they
don't fit into the paradigms I've personally set up in my view of how
things should be. In other words Richard, the excuse is a cop out for
people who don't really want to seek truth.
So again, winning isn't the issue at all.
-Jack
|