: : Yes, but if our litigious culture and the O.J. trial have taught me anything, it's that the indefensible isn't really and almost ANY position in an argument can be won if its defender is savvy enough. So, though I enjoy the adversarial system occasionally, I don't really trust it.: Well, court cases have various biases put in, (i.e. innocent until guilty beyond reasonable doubt, etc.), and have biases for wealth (i.e. guilt or innocence aside, he would have been convisted if poor), but here its all down to strength of case, plus a bit of skill in ducking tricky points...
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so specific in my reference to our litigious culture. What I meant was that our litigious culture is one major factor in my lack of faith in argument to prove anything. Another major factor is Internet discussion.
Arguments may be won and proven in an objective sense, but I've never seen any Usenet or Internet debater actually concede defeat, no matter how thoroughly their argument is demolished. So, what does that accomplish?
: Regarding the URL's, sorry, they work for me, perhaps its they are only available internally to Lancaster, if you'd really like to read them- Arthur Ransomes articles on the Russian Revolution, e-mail me- I can send them, but they are *big*....perhaps you library stocks them in Hard Copy...
Thanks. I'll look for them.
--E
None.
