Dave Lowry
15th February 2001, 15:42
A contretemps is sparked of late in a nearby forum. I believe it concerned some fellow heading an organisation who apparently desired the trappings, nomenclature, and general aura of a koryu, but whose aspirations towards the fealty and long-term commitment to a real koryu were less impassioned. The discussion isn’t so important as its dilation which is, unfortunately, hardly unique. Claims rather dubious are presented. An authority takes time to make a response nearly as gracious and restrained as it is informed and informative. The counters to his response are far less so, in every way, though more immediate and protracted. The reprove of a second authority appears: your challenges to the first authority are ignorant to some degree, viz. you don’t know, in comparison to him, what you are talking about and shouldn’t really be doing so publicly. The retort of those so remonstrated on e-budo has become as predictable and inevitable as the luxation of Mr. Puffy and Ms. Lopez: I’ve got, they seem nearly obsessed with informing the rest of us, a right to my opinion. Sometimes, as recently, the “opinionator” will readily admit; compared with the horsepower of a Ferrari the authority brings to the discussion, the opinionator’s experience is more in the realm of a poorly tuned Yugo. No matter, he insists. He has his rights to his opinion.
I’m not doubting this. But I would presume to ask the opinionators: how much is your opinion worth? I’m not referring to its value in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, how much is it worth to you? Is it, for instance, more valuable than the opportunity to gain factual information and knowledge?
There are contributors on this site who have a pantload of that information and knowledge, much of which is of interest and value to me. I learn from what they have to say. Sometimes I disagree with them. When I do, I have two choices. I can, in writing privately to them or speaking directly, say, “You’re full of crap on this issue.” Or, I can think a bit before fashioning my responses.
Let’s say someone, oh, Mr. Skoss, for instance, offers a sentiment—let’s avoid budo as an example here and use something important, like cricket—that Australia would have won the ’81 Headingley Test against the English side had it not been for Willis’ middle-stump yorker against Bright in the last over. The notion, in my estimation, is daft. I would avoid the temptation to say so, however. Instead, I might reply, gee, your argument is interesting. And your points are all true; lunch was taken with England down 58-4, and the partnership of 35 taken in the over after the interval by Lillee and Bright brought Australia to 75-8, only 55 short. And yes, as you observe, Mr. Skoss, no Test side had won in that whole century after following on. But how do you account for both Dyson and Marsh hooking at Willis? Could that pair of disasters have set the stage for Lawson being caught behind? And I read a comment earlier by Mr. Amdur, who noted that Lillee was clearly chancing his arm, which gave Gatting that catch at mid-on; do you think that had some bearing on the Test?
Can you opinionators see that I have stunned two birds with a single stone? I have challenged his statement (with facts, not the birthright of my opinion, and without open confrontation) but more importantly, I’ve attempted to elicit a response to take advantage of Skoss’ reputedly formidable knowledge of international test cricket. I challenge, but I’ve also created an environment where he’s likely to continue the dialogue, an environment where I—and other readers—can learn.
To be sure, this second approach will be dismissed as obsequious or toadying. That among the most dismissive will be those whose claims of understanding koryu mentality are most strident and ambitious is both ironic and telling.
This forum offers a remarkable opportunity for exchange and it sure ain’t my place to broker the transactions here. My only point is to ask the opinionators to consider. We all know, and you so frequently remind us, the coin of your opinions are precious. Might you increase your dividends, however, by investing fewer opinions and working harder instead at withdrawing some of the splendid capital that is present here?
Cordially,
I’m not doubting this. But I would presume to ask the opinionators: how much is your opinion worth? I’m not referring to its value in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, how much is it worth to you? Is it, for instance, more valuable than the opportunity to gain factual information and knowledge?
There are contributors on this site who have a pantload of that information and knowledge, much of which is of interest and value to me. I learn from what they have to say. Sometimes I disagree with them. When I do, I have two choices. I can, in writing privately to them or speaking directly, say, “You’re full of crap on this issue.” Or, I can think a bit before fashioning my responses.
Let’s say someone, oh, Mr. Skoss, for instance, offers a sentiment—let’s avoid budo as an example here and use something important, like cricket—that Australia would have won the ’81 Headingley Test against the English side had it not been for Willis’ middle-stump yorker against Bright in the last over. The notion, in my estimation, is daft. I would avoid the temptation to say so, however. Instead, I might reply, gee, your argument is interesting. And your points are all true; lunch was taken with England down 58-4, and the partnership of 35 taken in the over after the interval by Lillee and Bright brought Australia to 75-8, only 55 short. And yes, as you observe, Mr. Skoss, no Test side had won in that whole century after following on. But how do you account for both Dyson and Marsh hooking at Willis? Could that pair of disasters have set the stage for Lawson being caught behind? And I read a comment earlier by Mr. Amdur, who noted that Lillee was clearly chancing his arm, which gave Gatting that catch at mid-on; do you think that had some bearing on the Test?
Can you opinionators see that I have stunned two birds with a single stone? I have challenged his statement (with facts, not the birthright of my opinion, and without open confrontation) but more importantly, I’ve attempted to elicit a response to take advantage of Skoss’ reputedly formidable knowledge of international test cricket. I challenge, but I’ve also created an environment where he’s likely to continue the dialogue, an environment where I—and other readers—can learn.
To be sure, this second approach will be dismissed as obsequious or toadying. That among the most dismissive will be those whose claims of understanding koryu mentality are most strident and ambitious is both ironic and telling.
This forum offers a remarkable opportunity for exchange and it sure ain’t my place to broker the transactions here. My only point is to ask the opinionators to consider. We all know, and you so frequently remind us, the coin of your opinions are precious. Might you increase your dividends, however, by investing fewer opinions and working harder instead at withdrawing some of the splendid capital that is present here?
Cordially,