[LINK] RFI: Scroogle
link at todd.inoz.com
Sat Mar 24 11:52:43 AEDT 2007
At 09:08 AM 24/03/2007, Robert Hart wrote:
>Karl Auer wrote:
>>On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 22:01 +1100, Roger Clarke wrote:
>>>A subscriber on the privacy list (while researching the deservedly
>>>infamous Bagaric, the pro-torture Law Professor at Deakin)
>>Wow. I just went and read some of his stuff.
>>And this from a *law* professor! It just goes to show how even the most
>>well-trained thinker, can build the most appallingly, embarrassingly
>>wrong conclusions at times. That he was prepared to *publish* them is
>>almost beyond credibility.
>>Actually, are we sure he really exists? He's not a straw man, is he?
>Hang on a minute - whilst I find some of this individual's writings
>seriously problematic, I have just spent a few hours reading a number of
>his articles and I have to say that whilst I do not agree with much of
>what he writes, he argues for the most part cogently. I have the feeling
>also that he writes deliberately confronting articles at least in part to
>shine a light on societal views that are too often held without thought (I
>also think that there is perhaps more than an iota of self promotion
>involved, but that's another matter).
He's a Devils Advocate and a "stirrer" and you are right when you say by
posing such views it creates discussion and debate.
He himself may not even agree with the things he writes in some cases. I
know sometimes I don't agree with the things I say, but they need to be
said because the thoughts and reasons behind them are important
characteristics of debate.
This style is the very reason ANU didn't accept me as a Mature Age
Student. In my Entrance test of 750 words, I wrote three points of view in
250 words on the topic and was told that the writing was very awesome, but
I should only present one point of view.
How can I do that, when there is always: Protagonist, Antagonist and Observer.
More information about the Link