Unfair discussion method (Was: Re: Jihad)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Mirek,  (and all)

I have been discussing a lot with Georges M., opposing his
arguments inside and outside one of his "seeking consensus"
workshops.

When Georges had no strength to defend his arguments against
my opposition, he always used this words:  "we shall postpone
this discussion point in our workshop until the proper time and
context has come."

But what happened, really?  No such discussion proper time
did even come, because Georges wanted to get consensus to
his axiom-based context platform prior, so he kindly invited
any discussant to undergo like pupils his thought line as the
discussion bedrock.  Thence he but started to dismiss any
counter-argument as "prattle" -- to say the least.

It seems to me, the same is happening now.  Georges claims
that you (we) are unable to discuss his point "reasonably". To
wit, in order to be enabled to discuss about, every discussant
shall be prior inserted into (and learn like obedient pupil) his
"Context" notes, i.e., his axiomatic platform at the very end.

No wonder then, if  Georges' seeking consensus workshop
wanting to get the Palestinian and the Israeli "cannon fodder"
into reconciliation has got no consensus for 30 years, so late.
But of course: Georges' fundamental reason is, there must be
some "Orwellian pig" somewhere.  I mean, anywhere else
but in his axiomatic "context"... and so the vicious circle is
closed.


Regards,
antonio






At 11:19 +0200 1-06-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
> "M. Kolar" wrote:
>  > Dear Georges,
>  >    I have still been re-reading and thinking especially about
>  > your Jihad page.
>  > How do you for example reconcile your recommendation
>  > to use secret services to solve the world's problems with
>  > your claims of organizing workshops seeking consensus
>  > among the Arabs and Jews for 30 years???
> ================================================
>  G:
>  As I wrote in another post, Pax Americana is in my site
>  out of context and cannot be reasonably discussed. I shall
>  prefix it with "Context" note and suggest that we postpone
>  the discussion till it's done.
>  As to reconciliation:
>  In "ISRAEL-PALESTINE AND THE PIGS" (pigs being
>  Qrwellian metaphore) I say that IMO the ME war is run
>  by Jewish and Muslim pigs over the heads of Palestinians
>  and Israelis, using them as cannon fodder.
>  Thus,
>  - War against pigs with secret services and whatever,
>  - Reconcile Palestinian and Israeli victims of pigs and make
>    them turn against pigs together.
> ================================================
>  MK:
>  > P.S. You say:
>  > > Let's remember that opposing government decisions
>  > > in time of war has a name: "treason".
>  >        Every German citizens and then citizens of all the
>  > countries occupied and annexed by Germany (including
>  > yourself) who were against Hitler were also guilty of
>  > "treason", right?
> ================================================
>  Certainly, in Nazis' eyes, and they acted accordingly.
>  However, we did not accept Nazi law, so in our eyes it was
>  no treason. Now, my symbolic "American Friend", to whom
>  I addressed the Jihad post, accepts American Constitution
>  and law and opposing it in time of war makes himself clearly
>  guilty of treason.
>  But again, let's postpone the discussion till Pax Americana
>  reenters its context.
>  Georges.
> =================================================