Based on recent discussions at other blogs, I am offering the opportunity for anyone to pick a topic on which they'd like to focus for the purpose of determining why I believe as I do. In responding, I will not ask any question of my own toward the questioner intending to determine his position, but only to have a question clarified in order to more clearly articulate my position. Here are some qualifications:
1. Should anyone take up the challenge, I reserve the right to pick from amongst multiple topics, which topic I will address.
2. If there appears to be multiple "votes" for any particular topic, I might use that as the determining factor, while still reserving the right to choose.
3. I reserve the right to determine any topic suggested to be inane and idiotic, simply because it strikes me thus. I will allow for brief arguments in response to my rejection, should I post a reason for rejecting it.
4. I WILL delete or mock any attempted abuse of this opportunity. I am sticking my neck out here and would like to believe that risk will be respected.
5. In responding to questions, I may call for relevance. It would save time if the relevance for a question is provided at the same time a question is asked, though it doesn't mean that relevance will be perceived in such a manner that I feel compelled to respond. Likely, I'll simply ask for more explanation.
This is all pretty much how I would like all discussions to run as pertains the seeking of understanding. But as recent discussions have shown, going back and forth often results in tangents, diversions, equivocating and outright dodging of questions. If I restrain my own desire to question my interrogator, it is my hope that I can exhaust any line of questioning on any given topic to the extent that I have a complete and firm position on it.
Anybody up for this?