I am generally very disagreeable and feel certain that, were I to meet with one of the participants at the Communism conference, I would find a way. And I'm not disputing the fact that people have strongly held beliefs. For myself, I find that I continuously change my political views as I learn more about the world. Obviously, any findings when n=1 are not going to be significant, and perhaps I am simply deluded, but.... Lets say we are talking, me and, I dunno, Alain Badiou. What are we talking about? Perhaps the weather. So we do share some assumptions, some interests. I think communism is a bad idea, Badiou thinks it's a good idea -- that's all very mundane. But what is this thing that we are talking about? I think it is not the same. Under the conditions specific to my proposition, communism is bad by definition. For Badiou, the reverse is true. Do we need to agree on a definition of communism to communicate? I am not sure that we do, and I am not sure that that if we did it would be limited to politics. An ethnomethodoloist would say that the communication of reason is never a goal. Rather, it is the production of an event.