XPost: rec.arts.anime.misc   
   From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com   
      
   David McMillan wrote:   
   > On 6/29/2010 12:31 PM, Blade wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "selaboc"  wrote in message   
   >> news:74f4ca02-9933-4c0c-a0fa-2c420f7ba018@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...   
   >>> On Jun 29, 11:43 am, "Blade"  wrote:   
   >>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"  wrote in   
   >>>> messagenews:i0ctk9$lnr$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > Blade wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >> I posted to ask Sea Wasp why he loudly advocated an argument while   
   >>>> >> simultaneously declaring he was not advocating the argument, since   
   >>>> >> that   
   >>>> >> seemed to me to be a quite peculiar thing to do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > While it doesn't seem peculiar to me at all to note that there are   
   >>>> > multiple reasonable positions to take.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sure, noting that would be nothing unusual, but that isn't what you   
   >>>> actually   
   >>>> did. What you did was say:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "This is a reasonable stance to take, although it is not my opinion.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (THREE PARAGRAPHS OF ARGUING FOR WHAT IS NOT MY OPINION)"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It was the contrast between your declaration of it not being your   
   >>>> opinion   
   >>>> and your immediately following impassioned defence of it that struck   
   >>>> me as   
   >>>> peculiar.   
   >>>   
   >>> Ever hear of the devil's advocate?   
   >>   
   >> Much as I appreciate your association of piracy-apologists with the   
   >> devil, by claiming Sea Wasp was playing devil's advocate, you are   
   >> therefore saying he was advocating a position he did not agree with for   
   >> the purpose of fomenting argument. Which, uh, would bear a certain   
   >> resemblance to the behaviour of a troll.   
   >   
   >     Errr, no.  That's not what a Devil's Advocate does.  It's more in   
   > line with an attorney arguing a case he doesn't believe in for a client   
   > whose case he suspects of being baseless, because regardless of his   
   > personal feelings, said client has a right to a competent legal defense.   
   >     Wasp wasn't trolling, he was elucidating a set of arguments which he   
   > finds understandable even while disagreeing.   
   >   
      
   	And my actual position lies somewhere between the usual extremes. (I   
   say "usual extremes" because there are the *nutball* extremes   
   represented by the vocal "not only do I have the right to take the   
   stuff, I should be hostile to its creators for not kneeling before me   
   for reading it" types on one side, and the   
   unfortunately-not-just-our-resident-obsessive's opinion on the other side).   
      
   --   
                         Sea Wasp   
                           /^\   
                           ;;;	   
         Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)