Eric Rosenberg wrote:
> That we may (and often do) disagree is a good thing. That we respect
> each other's opinions and agree to disagree is even better.
Have you tried finding a common ground? What I mean is that one easily
gets lost in an endless discussion on things you disagree about. After a
while each other's arguments will seem mutually exclusive, or at least
incompatible. Maybe
it's more productive to look at what you agree on and start from there.
Example...
Both parties agree that deployment of BPL needs to be halted/prevented.
On the "how" parties argue:
Party 1: we need to prevent deployment of BPL through restrictive
regulation. (political argument)
Party 2: deployment of BPL will be impeded if cheaper/better
alternatives
can be offered. (economical argument)
Perhaps we can use both arguments to reach the same goal. In this
example that would be something like, "Let's try to slow down the
deployment of BPL through the regulatory process (call it politics if
you will) so that the marketplace has more time to develop and deploy
alternatives, to position currently available competing technologies
better, or both, in order for BPL to become an unattractive investment
and perhaps not even a viable alternative to what currently is
available.".
73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|