on 4/13/07 10:27 AM, Sean Barrett at sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on 4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference to any aspect of a person.
As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be met with "huh?" :-)
Okay, let's get nitpicky. If we assume for the sake of discussion that their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is worth something. What exactly would such a response be worth? What value would it have?
For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
And also for the record, it is still my belief that every opinion - like every person - has some value. And to use the word "worthless" in any reference to any aspect of a person is hurtful.
I'm simply trying to advocate caution when using the word. It is rhetoric like that which can harm relationships and make productive communication impossible.
Marc