BE WARNED

      The lists, forums, and chat groups swarm with correspondents who know next to nothing about reasoned argumentation.  If you don't like the following, you will encounter some frustration on most of the lists:

   1. If you want replies to address what has been said and that stick to the point rather than the prevalent ignoratio elenchi.  Don't argue for things the other side has not disagreed with--unless something said by the other side implies or clearly involves such disagreement:  It is pointless to argue about things agreed on, though it happens often enough.
   2. If you want facts or reasons in place of statements of opinion and wishes of what people would like to be thus and so.
   3. If you want reasoning coherent enough that it could be syllogized--so that fallacies and other antilogisms are avoided.
   4. If you prefer not to read ad hominem abuse in place of attacks on ideas; if you prefer reasoning to pejorative put-down terms; if you prefer not to be snowed with irrelevancies.  Correlatively and reciprocally, you do not like a reasoned argument rejected as an ad hominem attack or something else of the sort by those who don't know the difference.

      Lists are not themselves bad because some of those posting mes-_- sages are lacking in the skills necessary to conduct a straight-forward discussion.  You will soon learn which posters to ignore.  You may  occa- sionally even find some distortions so blatant and silly as to be amusing 
in a certain wry or oblique sort of way.  It not seldom happens that correspondents give arguments for your position while supposing that they are arguing against it.

SEE ALSO R109