Tapscott's post points to board member Dan Gillmor's blog post regarding his recent speech to the PR people of the teacher's union - the National Education Association (NEA). What Gillmor says has some relevance to the comment wars that routinely take place here on Wizbang, methinks...

One of the most telling moments of the session came when we were chatting about whether the union websites should point to their opponents' sites. To me, this is an obvious thing to do -- to create educational portals that lead people to varying sides of a vital national debate over the future of public education. To the NEA folks, this was a lot less obvious, and in at least one man's view a total nonstarter.

People who are advocating for one side of an issue make a mistake, I believe, when they don't directly engage with their opponents. I'm not suggesting that the NEA put up prominent links to some of the nuttier organizations that consider public education an evil, not a vital national policy and resource. (Actually, it might be a good idea, given that most rational people would find the NEA utterly moderate by comparison).

But there's lots to gain, and little to lose, in having the confidence of one's own ideas to publicly debate the issues. At the very least, it forces people to make a better case for their own views, because the other side(s) will poke holes in flimsy arguments.

We all learn more from people who disagree with us than from people who agree. That argues for more transparency in communications, and more conversation.

I know I rarely point out the ways that Wizbang bloggers and commenters have changed my thinking on many important issues, but I will try to do that more in the future.

Quick case in point - the stem cell issue. I strongly believe that scientists should be free to explore as many avenues as possible in researching cures, but if the recent discovery that stem cells in amniotic fluid hold nearly the same promise, why not respect the religious views and sensibilities of others, and limit the research in ways that aren't offensive to a significant segment of our population?

I'm not trying to spark a debate on stem cells, but this illustrates my point. I came to that conclusion after reading the debate on this issue here on Wizbang.

Neither side will find that middle ground without the kind of conversations described by Gillmor -- the kind we that occur here on Wizbang daily. Those who think the debate and noise generated here is a bad thing, might want to reconsider.

Lee,

I agree with you. It's good that we have people with opposing viewpoints who comment here. It makes things interesting, and personally, I'd get bored really fast if everyone agreed with me. The name calling - by everyone - gets pretty old, though.

Lee, that commentary would mean a little more from you if you actually answered questions posed to you, instead of posting long quotes irrelevant to the thread, then disappearing when the questions get too logical.

Leave him alone, John. Lee has to play to his strengths.

J.

Haven't seen any logical questions from you yet, John, but I'll keep my eyes open for any in the future. And as you can tell by my response to Jay's comment, I tend to just ignore trolls and ad hominem attacks.

When asked why the mere existence of Jamil Hussein proved the rest of the stories he fed to the AP automatically true, you never answered.

When challened on you repeated and emphatic assertion that the Ethics Committee was run by Republicans in the last Congress, when in fact it was evenly split as it always is (meaning any party can deadlock it, as happened with Conyers), you never answered.

That's pretty typical.

"When asked why the mere existence of Jamil Hussein proved the rest of the stories he fed to the AP automatically true, you never answered."

Since I never said that the mere existence of Jamil Hussein proved the rest of the stores published by the AP which quoted Hussein were automatically true, I ignored your question -- just as I will ignore it now.

Why would I defend a position that isn't mine, John? Newspapers quoted President Bush when he said we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, and to secure his stockpile of WMDs. I know that a quote in the newspaper proves nothing.

"When challened on you repeated and emphatic assertion that the Ethics Committee was run by Republicans in the last Congress, when in fact it was evenly split as it always is (meaning any party can deadlock it, as happened with Conyers), you never answered."

Irregardless of the makeup of the membership, the House Ethics Commitee is chaired (I said "run") by a Republican. The quote I included from the Washington Times mentioned that specifically.

"The Republican-led House ethics committee -- in possibly its last action before Democrats take over Congress -- closed the three-year investigation of Rep. John Conyers Jr. after he agreed to stop using staffers for campaign work and personal errands. "

This is why I ignore your comments, JohnAnnArbor. You follow me around posting "logical questions" that are (a) based on fantasy, or (b)are you just attempts to re-direct in a direction you want the discussion to go.

In the 10 months I've been around here I've learned who the time wasters are, and when I see a comment by you I choose to skip over it and go on. You're not the only one I usually choose to ignore, and you are of course free to ignore what I write as well. The fact that you've become one of the conservatives who troll after me, barking at my heels asking questions, and then are offended when I ignore you, is not my concern, sorry.

Your attacks not withstanding, there are people here -- conservatives -- who's thoughts I read and look forward to however, and I said in my first comment I appreciate their efforts - and their efforts have helped move my views on a number of important issues towards the center.

Are you finished taking this thread off-topic, now? Feel free to write me at (leedamnit at yahoo dot com) if you want to chat further.

Jay Tea is correct, I see.

And now you know why I usually choose to ignore your comments, JohnAnnArbor.

Hey,
I love what you'e doing!
Don't ever change and best of luck.

Raymon W.