Spirited Debate on LO LO6837

Tobin Quereau (quereau@austin.cc.tx.us)
Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:00:57 -0500 (CDT)

Replying to LO6720 --

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 GaltJohn22@aol.com wrote:

> Replying to LO6660 --
> I chose the word "arrogant" for this reason: I was attempting to see what
> sort of rigor you and/or the list would use in the process I describe
> above. That is, since I used the words "in fact" and "hypothetically" in
> my thesis, that thesis could not be attacked logically because we were
> agreeing to a set of assumptions or stipulations as premises to the
> arguement that *followed* the statement.
> By using what would *normally* be a judgement or opinion conclusion
> ("arrogant") in a statement which *stipulated* arrogance as a fact, I
> could then see which the reader would react to:
> CASE 1
> Logically, if arrogance were stipulated, the answerer should deal with the
> ensuing argument as to whether the person should be *told* that their
> statement was arrogant.
> CASE 2
> But by stipulating as fact what is normally a judgement, some readers
> would, perhaps, jump to a conclusion that the *writer* was being arrogant
> in interposing their judgement as fact. This interpretation means the
> reader ignored that arrogance was *stipulated* as fact.
> I saw both Case 1 & 2 responses in the answers.

Hal, I have enjoyed the energy this train of conversation has engendered,
but I would like to check out something about the "dust" that has been
kicked up along the way.

You mention in your post that you "chose" the term arrogant to "see what
sort of rigor you and/or the list would use in the process" which you were
interested in. That clarifies a few things for me and raises another

First, I am better able to understand what your intentions are/were when
you disclose them. It may be possible on a list like this to address them
more directly than indirectly (with less fireworks but more clarity), but
that is an assumption I am making and hardly a fact. I also wonder if what
you/we are learning is enhanced by the "cloud of dust" raised or not. I
can see that if the intention is to see how much dust we are surrounded
by, this might be the quickest way to find out. The drawback for me is
that my level of trust is not heightened when I perceive you acting on one
level intitially and discover your somewhat different intentions later on.
How will I know what is going on "the next time" you send out a challenge?

Secondly, you mention having "stipulated" the judgement of arrogance to be
a "fact". I may be wrong here, but my understanding of stipulation, even
in a court of law, is that it requires the acceptance of the other party
to the discussion. So "unilateral" stipulation, while perhaps attractive
to the stipulator, rarely has the intended result until the other parties
agree to the convention. At that point you would be much more likely to
learn what you wanted to learn about the issue and/or the other parties
thought processes. Your statement to the effect that "we have agreed" to
the stipulation is not sufficient to create the "fact" of an agreement.

I raise these points to suggest that "what you could see" by the process
you were using might not be what you thought you are seeing, and that the
dust that gets kicked up in a friendly scuffle can be as dangerous to
everyone's eyes as it is revealing of that which we often overlook.

At one point you replied--to Margaret, I think--with your understanding of
the term "heated" (and one other, as well, my memory fails here), and I
believe you said that to you it meant energetic. That is certainly
something I could sign on for, but I think it helps to make your meaning
clear since the terms could be conveying a very different message to
others (as illustrated in the many "energetic" responses that have

Tobin Quereau


Tobin Quereau <quereau@austin.cc.tx.us>

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