Kirk Haines wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 August 2005 2:46 pm, Isaac Gouy wrote:
>
> > Interesting questions Matthew.
> >
> > imo What we learn depends on how actively we participate, and what we
> > already know or assume we know, and many other factors.
> >
> > So I should ask
> [List of questions that don't answer the prior questions deleted.]
>
> I've been watching this debate with some interest.  I think Austin does some
> harm to his position with the anger with which he seems to present it, but on
> the flipside, you seem to be taking a lot of long, lazy walks around some
> clear questions without actually getting to an answer.  This last reply that
> you sent to Matthew's questions is a perfect example.  Answering a question
> with a question isn't an answer.  It's a dance, a circumlocution, an evasion.

Sometimes it's none of those things, sometimes it takes a couple of
conversational turns before we are all clear what the real questions
are.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/613e239d096f7138?hl=en&


> Answer the man's question, one at a time.  Then pose questions of your own.
> That's how a debate is supposed to take place; answer a question with a
> question is just weak.

Is debate the only form of conversation that's acceptable here, or can
there be discussion without winners and losers?