Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 10:50 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Rick wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is another thing that wastes a lot of my (and others') time.  You 
> deleted the very thing you are writing about -- your "qualification" of 
> "it."  But what is "it" -- I'd have to look it up to find out.  I don't 
> remember any qualification.  I'm not going to look it up.  So it's over. 
> I don't know what you were talking about, you concealed it from me.  If 
> you wanted for me to get something from that line above, you failed.
> 

As I respond to just about every post in the exact same, in-line,
method, I believe your accusation of "concealment" is weak and
unjustified. Does your mail reader not thread? In future conversations,
I'll leave it for your reference.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> I probably said that once in the past 9 years on this list.  You'd have to 
> be saying some really stupid things to get that out of me.  It probably 
> meant that you (or whoever) were writing without reading the messages from 
> me that you were responding to.
> 

You've said those exact words perhaps once in 9 years, but you've said
many other similar derisive things to the person you're conversing
with. 

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Sorry, but I just thought that it was more polite to reply, pointing out 
> that I didn't understand the question, than to ignore her.  I still think 
> so.  By the way, I think that her long-winded wise-assed response with 
> dictionary definitions was intentionally rude and a waste of time.  Does 
> no one else think so?  I guess it's a lot easier to pick on me because you 
> know that I can take it and no one will defend me.
> 

Is it easy to pick on you specifically? I don't personally think that
I'm picking on you per se, but I do object to your abusive tactics and
speak up when I think it's appropriate. I would do the same thing in any
public forum for anyone else I felt was being treated inappropriately.

> 
> > 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 read one and responded to it.  If you want to discuss it, you should 
> pick something like this and tell me what was wrong with what I wrote:
> 
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-03/msg00245.php3
> 
> Is there something wrong with what I wrote there?
> 

Well, let's see:
1. your apparent sarcasm is exactly the same thing you were chastising
Diane's post for above.
2. Your one sentence comment added to the full article posting left me to question whether you were agreeing with the review or the book....
3. You then chide Christian for making fun of you making fun of me
4. You mention that no one can respond to the "facts", of which your previous posting is rather lacking. There's lots of numbers and suppositions, but the support for those is not in the article you posted.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Right.  I want to learn things.
> 
> Mike
> 

As do I. I already know what I know, but there's a great deal more
floating around inside my noggin that is "belief". I try to recognize
those and verify that those beliefs are actually based on something
defensible besides some ethereal feeling. I think you try to do that as
well, but as often as not, when someone disagrees with what you present
as fact, even if it's just to question the fact or the source the fact
is based on, you tend to get more than a little persnickety.

Rick
+3 word score for using persnickety in a sentence =)
-- 
http://xkcd.com/368/
Okay, now throw the switch labelled "Macarena"


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