Following an Internet Conversation

Conversation: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=108753
Regarding an announcement on whitehouse.gov that gives an email address for people to contact if they become aware of any chain emails floating around that may be spreading falsities about Obama's health care plan.

The first poster on this thread makes the claim that this is a "Big Brother-ish" act. He expresses worry that the President seems to be calling for citizens to report other citizens to the government. For most of the conversation, it simply goes back and forth between people arguing whether or not it sounds Big Brother-ish. It's basically a "yeah huh" and "nuh uh" argument. Eventually, someone finally makes the distinction that they are simply asking for information that is circulating publicly, not for the names of the people who are spreading it or any personal info. So, in this sense, the argument is made that there is nothing wrong with this strategy. The thread stays on topic basically the entire time, except for one person who says that they think the first poster's "paranoia" is humorous. The topic digresses a little when people begin to discuss whether information is to be used for "nefarious purposes." That is, the participants begin to discuss whether or not it is alright for the government to spy on its citizens if it is for the greater good. But this still does not make sense, as the distinction had already been made that no personal information is being gathered.

A conversation definitely takes place on this forum thread. Most of the time, people are responding to each other's arguments and exploring a political issue. However, no conclusion seems to be reached. Whenever someone makes a good point, the opponent usually just changes the subject or brings up another good point. It seems like no progress is made in the argument. Everyone simply throws in their two cents, but no one learns from each other. In this sense, the conversation metaphor fails.