For members of any
of our regular online groups:
We have been delighted
by the sheer amount of intelligent commentary which has arisen from the debate of the material in the WLO site. Much of the
content is controversial, however, and certain problems have arisen. Debate is like a gunfight - speed is usually at
the expense of accuracy. Serious matters should be weighed calmly. One should never reply the same day. Problems exemplifying
this kind of frantic rush-to-judgment are as follows:
1. Laziness. We are more than happy to answer intelligent
logical questions which might arise from a careful reading of this volume. We will not, however, respond to questions which
clearly reflect that the individual gave the work only a quick glance. Our time is too valuable to waste on private copy-and-paste
tutorials.
2. The trigger-happy practice of skipping ahead and reacting out-of-context.
Often an idea is greatly qualified by the ideas which preceed and follow it. Sometimes the entire essence of what ties
a book together will be found only in the preface or introduction. A good example here is the reader so anxious to express
himself that he will quickly skim the text for emotionally charged keywords that he can object to. This way he can quickly
express his philosophy without having to read or think. If the person doesn't have sufficient time or energy to digest
this material in it's entirety, then it shouldn't be read at all.
3. The mistake of acting as though one statement is somehow supposed
to be a microcosm of an entire work, defining every term and elucidating every principle in one or two sentences. If this
were possible, one book would summarize an entire library. This error leads to superfluous comment resulting from the wrong
assumption that specific points have not been covered elsewhere in the work.
4. The tendency to ignore the actual words a person uses and react
to some complex of ideas which the reader brings to the situation rather than what the writer is actually saying. This will
often involve the reader's simply ignoring words not understood. A good collegiate dictionary close at hand is a remedy here.
5. The problem of not separating the important from the trivial.
This results in petty and pedantic chit-chat. This, especially is helped by first sleeping on the idea.
6. The shortcut of glib negative summary. There is unfortunately
a certain element who feel justified in quickly reviewing books they haven't read. This is easier of course, than creating
something oneself. Our ideas are not intended for narrow individuals who try to falsely enhance themselves by quickly dismissing
that which challenges them. Those who have taken the time to write something are seeking only specific substantive comment,
because only this can lead to constructive upgrade of the material.
7. The use of insult or slander. Sadly, the same anonymity which
makes message boards such a wonderful forum for free expression also provides a safe haven for unhappy people who like to
be abusive. We always try to be genteel and will not read the posts of anyone who is nasty. Insult is not is not equivalent
to viable argument and always comes from people with untenable viewpoints which they simply can't defend(1).
Generally speaking the kind of tedium that comes from all this
intellectual slovenliness isn't worthy of reply. Serious people won't squander their time on dilettantes.
