To argue about the issues is only useful when everyone is doing so in
good faith. An argument is not the same as an apologia, which is what
this particular person always comes up with. Like a politician, he has
no genuine interest in getting at the truth, only in concocting a
plausible sounding justification for the current unjustifiable power
structure.

Many of the most productive discussions I've had have been with those
who strongly disagree with me, and I've spent most of the last 2 years
actually reading, sometimes even responding to, Simmons' distorted
presentation of the world, unwilling to simply write off someone's
views just because they virulently disagree with mine. But in all that
time he has not said one thing worth reading.

Finally, since it is abundently clear he is not arguing in a good faith
to work out right from wrong, I recently began simply deleting his
messages, unread. He contributes nothing, and if we ignore him he'll
probably go away.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2002 10:40 am
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Well? Where's the indignation?:-)

> At 2:28 PM +0100 4/3/02, Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
> >Well, I don't agree that he is a troll.  It is useful to argue about
> >these issues.  Arguing about them allows me to clarify my own
> beliefs,>and to change them.  It is better to have Simmons around
> than to not
> >have him around.  But he certainly seems to be stridently wrong *all*
> >the time.
>
> The definition of "troll" has always seemed a bit vague and
> arbitrary to me. I definitely agree that it is more educational to
> debate with someone who disagrees with you and can can challenge
> your fundamental beliefs though. I've always found this an
> enlightening process.
>
> Though Mr Simmons is not very good at it. He hardly ever puts up
> any challenging arguments, so I don't get much of a chance to
> argue with him.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>