Interesting thought, but that assumes that the conversation is one
way, and that only one side of the conversation needs to compromise.

I submit that when both parties understand their audience, and attempt
to communicate meaningful, useful, and positive information, the
results of the conversation are far better than otherwise.

A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk to
is better off for having talked to you."  Certainly not always
possible, but I see no reason why technical information can't be
transferred in such a manner.

-Adam

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, YES NOPE9 <yes@nope9.com> wrote:
> Just think how great it would be if people were at the Phase 2 level.
>
> #1 =A0Insults would not bother them. =A0They would simply extract
> any useful information from the utterance.
>
> #2 =A0They would not be offended by generalizations since they
> realize they are unique.
>
> #3 =A0They would not support positions just because they always
> did before , their friends support the position, the country they
> live in "supports" the position , their "religion" supports the
> position.
>
> #4 =A0They could read anything on the PIClist and not get upset.
> They could choose to ignore anything they considered a
> waste of time. =A0They would not have to be protected by
> "nanny" moderators because ..... see #1
> They could differentiate between useful information and
> ad hominems. =A0They might even exceed fish self-awareness
> by recognizing the water they swim in.
>
> Gus
>
>
> PROGRESSION =A0( fractional values allowed )
> 0 Lizard brain
> 1 phase 1
> 2 phase 2
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist