Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff D
Thanks Ian,
I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation.
Thank you and good luck 
Jeff |
I really don't see what the problem is here. If there is a question of reliability of a source, whether it be a literary one or a personal observation, that question must be coming from somewhere. So point it out, explain it, explain the counter-point. If you think there is bias, explain why, establish the point.
What would be unacceptable, of course, are personalized criticisms, for example questioning a particular statement's accuracy or validity without any particular basis other than a negative personal opinion of the author, or based mostly (or entirely) on resentment or disagreement over some past exchange. It is the difference between debate and name-calling. The former is what mature, reasoning people do, articulating their positions in a respectful way, with reference to information and/or reasoning that is pertinent to the topic being discussed. The latter is what little people in kindergarten do.
Since we all here are long out of kindergarten, I am sure that it will not be difficult to carry on a productive debate on this topic.