When you get to know me a little better from newsgroups palaver or more
useful conversation, you will find I bear no malice nor make it my
business to attack personally with the same, nor corporately, as this
rarely bears any fruit on the tree of assistance.
I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps I misread some of your rhetorical
characterizations. In any case, I'll take you at your word. At least you
seem to be able to deal with dispute in an emotionally-healthy manner. That
I respect.
As for the definition of "rhetoric," you still seem to miss the difference
(albeit subtle) between rhetoric and logic, or logical argument. Logic is
not an attempt to please or persuade. It is a means of resolving a problem,
of ascertaining as closely as possible the truth about an issue. To employ
logic in an argument is therefore not the same as to employ rhetoric. Logic
does not persuade. You cannot persuade 1 to be 0, nor true to be false. In
other words, rhetoric persuades, while logic dictates.
I am not interested in persuasion. That is best left to politicians and
salesmen. I am interested in truth, in fact, and in the logical ways and
means of deriving truth and fact, the only ideas that are useful for the
accomplishment of any purpose, particularly with regards to programming,
which is purely mathematical and logical, but also to the accomplishment of
(theoretically) anything whatsoever. In any case, my passion is the search
for truth.
I am here to help. Help with regards to these forums comes through
knowledge. Knowledge comes not by persuasion, but by logic and fact. When
fact is not known, it can often be derived by logic. However, as not all
facts are known, what seems to be factual logically may turn out to be
false, when more facts are brought to light.
Therefore, when I make an argument regarding an idea, I try to employ logic
with the same discipline that I apply to programming. I must admit, however,
that it is often *regarded* as rhetoric, and taken as a challenge to the
individual, rather than to an idea. This often leads to a reaction against
me, as if I owned the idea that I made an argument for. I may hold an idea;
I may defend and idea; but it will never belong to me. If a person can
logically refute the idea, I am just as quick to abandon it. After all, I
only have a limited life span in which to solve the riddles of life.
Conversely, when I challenge an idea, I am not challenging the individual
who promotes the idea, as if the idea were a reflection of that person.
However, this is quite often misunderstood in much the same way.
Rhetorical persuasion, however, does nothing to clarify an issue, nor to
solve a problem. It confuses issues, as it masquerades as information,
although it is not. It is manipulation disguised as information.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.
