Member Rara Avis
Hm. It seems to me that you're involved in moving the discussion in a direction that veers away from the original topic at hand - why fast readers are picked on; with such a move, we have progressed (loaded word) from the detail of grammar to the details of 'the bigger picture.'
Now, I wouldn't wish to call you guilty of aiding and abetting the very same process you are protesting against...
That aside, and following my own penchant to 'nit-pick', the main thrust of your paragraph suggests to me that you believe the result of all discussions must involve a resolution. Therefore, I have questions for you.
Then it is a shame we do not learn to discuss with the intent of finding the bigger picture and wrapping a framework around it so there is common ground before we enter into the nit picking of detail.
Who may I ask is the 'we' you speak of? Myself? Yourself? The poets at passions? The world's intellectuals? Every human being? Have you any right to speak for an unspecified we? Also, I am curious as to how you can claim that the said 'we' fails to find the bigger picture? I am curious as to how your bias against detail has arisen - as if detail and the bigger picture are mutually exclusive entities. Does every discussion need a concrete resolution for it to be a success? (One would then have to define success). Tricky. There are many different ways to look at the so-called central issue of a discussion. For myself - 'we' excluded - I see the central issue as a form of nucleus...with other issues/points of interest revolving around it.
One can nit pick anything to death... and never reach any agreement or understanding, putting people at opposite ends of a spectrum when it comes to truly understanding...
More questions - questions, that may or may not lead to more discussion. (Assuming, of course, that one does not view tangents as the means of a discussion's death). Should the objective of a discussion - no matter how banal a discussion might be - always be for true understanding? Given that the nature of discussion, (by default, according to my own, separate opinion of course) relies upon different points of view, would all participants wish for 'true understanding' - or is that a fruitless, almost Utopian-like outcome? Ultimately, Ron, who would you suggest defines the nature of true understanding? (Ever read anything by Michel Foucault? Perhaps unfortunately, I have never been able to construct notions of truth in quite the same way after reading him...)
but in my experience if the overarching framework of an issue is agreed upon..then resolving the details of the issue becomes a series of steps and perhaps understandings that can lead to true progress in everyone at least further embracing the need to make change...
Ah, more words that read straight from a propogandist's day-dream: 'steps', 'true progress', 'embracing', 'need to make change'. (I also note the 'everyone' - linking to the unspecified 'we'). How very neat and tidy. For me, this results in yet more questions, the main one being: what is true progress? Who decides the nature of a discussion's successful progress?
Now, let's apply this part of the discussion back to its original question: why fast readers are picked on.
You said: 'understandings that can lead to true progress in everyone at least further embracing the need to make change'
I ask: In your opinion, what understandings can come from the central issue at hand that could possibly involve 'everyone', (in this case, those currently involved in this discussion), embracing the need to make change? What change? Telling Julie how she can and can't reply perhaps? Or perhaps the rest of us could learn patience, acceptance, understandings of our own? Or perhaps Julie could slow down, 'we' could be more understanding, and everyone is happy? Do these solutions meet your needs of true progress?
to each there own...
Wait a moment. Did I just see 'to each their own'? Does that not contradict your own philosophy Ron? How can you say we must reach 'true understanding' in one breath, and then say 'to each their own' in the next? Perhaps this indicates a subconcious recognition that true understanding is a difficult myth to effect?
and from what I have read from you and seen you discuss.. you are far too intellegent to not see what I am saying... you may want to deny it and kick you feet and protest..or try to argue it with me... but.. you do understand
Hopefully, I have shown I do indeed see what you are saying, and I understand it. I don't, however, agree. I have not tried to argue it with you, though it might seem like it; I have, instead, attempted to draw you into further discussion by asking leading questions. If you reply, remember, you will be drifting into - by your own definition - incidentals: non-central issues that won't resolve the central questions of why fast readers are picked on...
[This message has been edited by Severn (03-18-2003 03:58 PM).]