Bearded Bruce

   You ask Arne where is the answer from him to a direct question of yours.

I have the same request.

It is a knotty problem - how is it possible to have a "non-partisan" discussion" when we refer to "the other side", as in "unless you know how the other side is thinking"?

A non-partisan discussion can only be entered, presumably, by those not on either side. Those on either side are, by definition, partisan.

That leads to a fundamental question, or rather the plural, to fundamental questions.. If someone on one side of an argument listens to the other side,

1. Does the outcome that having heard the other side they still don't agree prove that they have not heard?
2. Or having heard and still not agreeing does NOT prove that they have not heard the views of the other side?
3. In either case, how can it be part of a non-partisan discussion?

   (Cor, like being back at uni. doing me philosophy.

   Auto.