Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 09:48 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:

> But you'd be wrong.  Only Justin knows what happened from his perspective 
> and why he is saying these things.
> 

Which is precisely why I qualified it.

> Would someone who agreed with all of my ideas say such a thing?  I believe 
> not.  The reason you think that I am biased is that you don't agree with 
> me and on the very points where you disagree you see me as most biased. 
> Am I wrong?  You see me as biased against your ideas.  Do you see me as 
> biased when I agree with you?  Why not?  How can you tell that I'm the one 
> who is biased and that it isn't you?
> 

On the level you're commenting on, everyone is biased in that each of
our personal beliefs color our outlook and comments. This I agree on.
What I accuse you of is of actually applying your bias in such a way
that when someone doesn't agree with you, they are "mentally retarded"
or dysfunctional in some way.

> No it isn't.  Taking the most recent example where I told Diana that I 
> didn't understand her -- that's all it was.  I didn't understand her. 
> There were two interpretations of her question.  I could have written a 
> longer message explaining both interpretations and gently requesting 
> clarification, but I really don't consider that to be worth my effort. 
> So I wrote a much shorter message.  If her question implied some 
> disagreement, I didn't know that.
> 

And your statement that it's not "worth [your] effort" to clarify such a
statement, while still deigning to reply, is exactly why I perceive you
as arrogant and closed-minded.

> Something I said about religion almost certainly sent him over the edge. 
> There was a day when he decided to filter my messages.  When did that 
> happen?
> 

You appear to piss many people off on what is likely at least a
semi-regular basis. Is that reason to stop arguing with you? Not for me.

> Sorry, are you saying that there was something wrong with what I wrote 
> there?  The first message was an article with almost no words from me. 
> In the second message I wrote a single line that did not include the 
> phrase "don't understand."
> 
> Maybe you meant for me to follow the threads that started with those 
> messages to find something -- something that you have not bothered to 
> explain in any detail.  Following the first message I see a little sniping 
> and baiting from you and Cepel.  Looking back at it, the big question in 
> my mind is why I waste my time writing to people who would treat me that 
> way and who had nothing intelligent to say about a rather nice article on 
> an important topic.
> 
> Mike
> 

I took the time to find the threads, as far as I'm concerned, you could
at least thumb through them. Some of them I remember the conversations
fairly clearly, some I don't. You ask for examples, I provided some, you
call them irrelevant...yet another "bogus debate tactic" that I've
personally accused you of at least twice before.

I would suppose that you did not thumb through those threads very well,
since in the second one you replied with, both Christian and I agree
with you on at least a couple of points. Additionally, I would hold up 
http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-01/msg00251.php3
from that thread to point out that I do not routinely dis/agree with
someone just because I like or dislike them. 

As to why you waste your time on annoyances like myself, I'll leave that
for you to answer for yourself. As for myself, I prefer to debate with
people I disagree with as trying to argue with people your beliefs align
with tends to be pretty unproductive.

Rick
-- 
http://xkcd.com/368/
Okay, now throw the switch labelled "Macarena"


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion