Opinions are like underwear

[Terrance]

Otto wrote:
> 
> Right, remember MalignD's fine post on consistency (14/8/02, Re: MDDM
> World-as-text).


Yes, but my opinion is that we should not expect or value argument
consistency here. 
I'm not sure we should value argument here. Sometimes I wonder why
MalignD bothers to read anything posted here. If he is looking for
argument consistency this is not the place for him. Here we exchange
ideas, general information about Pynchon and his books. We argue about
the books and so forth, but this is not a philosophy list. 

 Reading Doug's posts to figure out what he is arguing and how he is
making his arguments is a waste of time. 

Most of what is posted here is not argument.  If you are looking for
argument consistency you might begin by looking at the conclusion or 
the conclusions of posts, but most posts don't have any. 

Why the expectation for argument consistency is just an excuse to bash
Doug. 

Example: 

Doug will argue that war is always wrong because it violates the right
to life. 
Someone may argue that life is not a right but a privilege. Doug may
say, OK, but war is wrong. No consistency. MalignD jumps on it and we
get 35 posts that argue about what  "he said" and "what I meant was..." 
and "you are misrepresenting me"  and so on. 


Conclusion: 

A good argument should be internally consistent. But if you are here to
read good, internally consistent argument, you are in the wrong place.