And I say " bosses " as opposed to clerical workers who answer calls at the customer complaint line because bosses are cheap stooges who never come to the phone while the poor clerks are asked to defend the undefendable and answer the illogical.
22.
This policy made the assumptions that an open conflict with India would not last long due to international pressure, and since East Pakistan was undefendable, the war-effort should be concentrated on occupying as large an area of Indian territory as possible as a bargaining tool at the negotiating table.
23.
Once Faustus made himself available, Augustine was extremely impressed with his rhetoric abilities and discipline, but soon learned he did not have the answers to his questions and realized that he was wise enough to not entertain questions for which he had no sound answer or which might force him to argue an undefendable or foolish position.
24.
Barbara Branden, a close Rand confidante and author of " The Passion of Ayn Rand "; Leon Louw, author and twice a Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his work to end Apartheid and defuse racial conflict in South Africa; Frances Kendall, co-author of two best-selling South African books; Richard L . Stroup, free-market environmentalist, professor of economics and director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the Department of Interior during the Reagan administration; Jane S . Shaw, journalist, environmentalist, and senior fellow of Property and Environment Research Center ( PERC ); Walter Block, director of the Centre for the Study of Economics and Religion at the Fraser Institute in Canada and anarcho-libertarian theorist and author of " Defending the Undefendable "; John Baden, co-author of " Managing the Common " and founder of Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment ( FREE ); Enrique Ghersi, Peruvian lawyer, professor, free market intellectual and a member of the Peruvian Parliament; Carl I . Hagen, Norwegian Member of Parliament and Progress Party leader; Petr Beckmann, scientist; Marshall Fritz, founder of Advocates for Self-Government; George H . Smith, historian and author of " Atheism : The Case Against God "; Dr . Peter Breggin, psychiatrist; Dr . Martin Krause, Argentine economist; Leonard Liggio, president of the Institute for Humane Studies; Robert Poole, privatization pioneer and founder of " Reason"
25.
:first of all you have to have a researchy / skepticy kind of mindset . when somebody tells you something don't take it at face value . additionally, be curious . read everything you can . back of a cereal box at breakfast . evaluate the validity of all this evidence you have accumulated with regard to the conclusions you have reached; there are things you are absolutely sure about, things you don't have any clue about, and things in between to various degrees . don't upgrade your conclusions; if you've seen something somewhere on the internet that says something, don't put it in the same category as something which you have seen proved many times by sources usually taken as reliable and is taken as fact by 99.99 % of humanity . now : when you are in a discussion don't bring up one of the maybe things as a " for sure " . but when you do bring up a " for sure " thing, you will have no doubt . when bringing up something that you're not sure about or have no clue about, make it quite clear that you're not staking your reputation on it . on the other hand, don't make it a big point when you bring up something you are sure about . eventually people ( including you ) will realize that when you make just a flat statement about something, it is reliable . also : the best way to prevail in a discussion / argument is to be on the correct side . don't find yourself defending the undefendable or arguing something silly just to save face . if you do find yourself proved to be on the wrong side, admit it ASAP . if necessary, apologize . don't get annoyed at somebody who just taught you something, even if he / she is a sore winner . again, people ( including you ) will get used to you being reliable . of course, not all arguments have a factual basis at bottom; politics, religion, etc . but usually you get involved in subarguments about who did what at what date or such, and you want to be the person who can state it with authority and, if necessary, when challenged dig up the reliable source you got that from; you don't want to be the guy who's stuck with " i saw on the internet or tv or somewhere that some guy said something like this . . . . . . " and not only can't back it up, isn't even 100 % sure it's correct . talk ) 20 : 00, 14 July 2008 ( UTC)
