Spirited Debate on LO LO6723

GaltJohn22@aol.com
Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:08:45 -0400

Replying to LO6667 --

In a message dated 96-04-14 15:16:30 EDT, you write:

>Maybe WHAT IS ARROGANT is the secondary issue. The primary is WHAT IS
>BEING ARROGANTLY SAID? Its a process vs. content issue. I care less
>about how you deliver a message and more about what you are saying. I can
>handle the arrogance. But underneath the arrogance, are you saying
>something important? I don't know yet, because I've put up my shields
>from your style. By my focusing on the process (delivery), I ignore the
>content.

BRAVO! This statement is one on which, I think, BOTH Rick and I can
agree. What Scott has crystalized here is, IMHO, the ambiguity of focusing
on *process* instead of *content*. Note that Scott says "I can handle the
arrogance." then immediately refutes his own statement with "I don't know
yet, because I've put up my shields from your style."

But then Scott takes personal reponsibility for it: "By focusing on the
process (delivery), I ignore the content."

I assert that if we are rigorous with *ourselves* as *readers* by focusing
on *content* we free ourselves to learn and say more. And probably make
Rick's job a whale of a lot easier.

Hal Popplewell
GaltJohn22@aol.com

-- 

GaltJohn22@aol.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>