discussions as fruitful and pleasant as possible: "Avoid tendentious references to side issues"—distractions such as personal attacks, claims about opponents' motivation, or irrelevant explanations or arguments. "Avoid tendentious renderings of other people's views"—editing quotes or paraphrasing in a biased or misleading way (for example, quoting out of context). "Avoid tendentious ambiguity"—deliberately offering ambiguous statements instead of more precise ones (equivocation). "Avoid tendentious argument from alleged implication"—assigning views to opponents that they do not hold (straw men). "Avoid tendentious firsthand reports"—information that is untrue or incomplete, withholding relevant information (for example, lying by omission). "Avoid tendentious use of contexts"—presenting material with extra accessories of persuasion and suggestion such as visual or aural appeals to emotion of irony, sarcasm, insult, exaggeration, or subtle (or open) threat. For many years these points were part of a compulsory course in philosophy (examen philosophicum) taught in Norwegian universities. Argumentation theorist Erik Krabbe later said that Næss's principles for effective discussion were precursors of the rules for critical discussion in pragma-dialectics. Ecosophy T Ecosophy T, as distinct from deep ecology, was originally the name of Næss's personal philosophy. Others such as Warwick Fox have interpreted deep ecology as a commitment to ecosophy T, Næss's personal beliefs. The "T" referred to Tvergastein, a mountain hut where he wrote many of his books, and reflected Næss's view that everyone should develop his own philosophy. Næss's ecosophy can be summed up as self-realization. According to Næss, every being, whether human, animal or vegetable, has an equal right to live and to blossom. Næss states that through self-realization humans can become part of the ecosystems of Earth, in distinction to becoming only themselves. According to one writer, Næss defined the ethical consequences of self-realization as: If one does not know how the outcomes of one's actions will affect other beings, one should not act. In an article that summarized Næss's career, Nina Witoszek noted that he qualified his most radical propositions using the rhetorical term "in principle", and he pragmatically recognized that, in Witoszek's words, "concessions are unavoidable; dogmas are ductile; and practice diverges from principle". Selected works Translation of Moderne filosofer. "Not a direct translation of Arne Naess' 1976 work, Økologi, samfunn, og livsstil, but rather a new work in English, based on the Norwegian, with many sections revised and rewritten by Professor Naess". (Review by David Orton, 2006) Vol. 1: Interpretation and Preciseness: A Contribution to the Theory