*DAMN R6 Forum

I'm a little too personally involved to see this clearly. . .will others please read the war thread and comment here. . .I'll let Bucc have the last word for now.

I voted for "Something Else" to signify my "Whatever" vote. People should debate however they feel. In addition to saying whatever they want, people also have the right to present ideas in whatever form they like. Whether or not one style is more effective at changing the other party's mind or not is irrelevant.

My word is this Loudnotes.  Doesn't matter.  I don't care if the poll is heavy in my favor, yours, or indiferent.  

Like I said before, if you don't like my style, you are free to not debate with me.  I didn't drag you into the last few at all.  Feel free to engage or not in debate with me, but a silly little poll isn't going to change my style, that's for damn sure.

Question is, did you go back and read it, as I suggested?  Or are you just being petty and ignorant?

Wait, before you answer that.  Wouldn't this come under that "persoan attack" thing you were against?  Fucking hypocrite.

Bucc, the use of the word hypocrite could be seen as a personal attack.

Calling someone's argument weak could be seen as a personal attack.

Why stop at just saying he doesn't like your style of debating?

Just as you don't see "attacking an argument" as a personal attack when many would say that the way you do that is, so Louds definition of a personal attack could be different than yours.  If he doesn't consider it a personal attack than he is in no way hypocritical to say what he has in this post.

For once please stop being so "fucking" judgmental.  Ironic that you call me petty, you call me hypocritical, when you dismiss everything I say entirely out of context.  Here especially, in no way did I slight you.

My honest attempt in this thread is to get an idea of others' opinions on the matter.  I feel like I can't address things you say when they're said in the manner I've gotten sick of - specifically the excessive profanity and line-by-line arrogance.  And yes, it is excessive when it serves no purpose other than to inform the world that you have nothing better to use in your vocabulary.  However, if other people on the forum, whose opinions I respect, felt differently, I would want to know.

Alaric has wisely chosen not to take sides.  But for once, Bucc, you can listen to someone else's judgement - if others will respond here.

Also Alaric, that's fine, but I always thought of these forums as more of a sounding board than an honest attempt to change anyone's mind.  Buccaneer's style lately has made it impossible for me and others to adequately debate - it interrupts the flow and makes response nigh impossible.  Which shouldn't really be the point.

Maybe I just haven't been in school long enough to understand. . .

I agree, but I'm not one for censoring people. Obviously you have requested that he use some other style and he has flatly refused. Only thing I'd tell Bucc is to stop saying that someone must not have understood his point just because they disagreed with it. That type of arrogance is what galls me sometimes.

Why should I?  Have you or him just stopped at saying it?  I think not.

Like I said before, if neither of you can stand to have your argument criticized without calling it a personal attack, then you are both in for a world of personal attacks in your lives.  If you can't take criticism, stay out of debate.  


Funny, but Loudnotes has "attacked" the style of debate I use.  By his posts in earlier threads, that would constitute a personal attack.  If he feels this way, he's a hypocrite for doing it himself.  

Personally, like I said, I don't care.  Especially if he's too lazy to go back and look at this issue when it was covered before, or give me any non personal argument as to why.  Same goes for you and your judgment of it.  Like you've said countless times.  "Who are you to judge?"


It's not my fault, nor responsibility that you don't seem to have the mental faculties to adequately debate based upon my posts.   There are so many people that have never had any problem at all.  

Have you considered that maybe, what you are finding impossible, is supporting a decision that you really haven't thought through all the way?  That you are maybe wrong about?  Have you actually considered that?  I doubt it.

And now you are saying that it's the POINT of my arguments to make it impossible to respond to.  What pile of bullshit is that?


Bullshit.  You are being "so fucking judgmental.  Look there, just above.  You are saying that the point of my style is to make it impossible for you to respond.  That's a fucking judgment.  

And I'm not the one that dismisses anything off hand.  I always give my reasons for dismissing it, unlike those that truly dismiss what is said, but ignoring it.  Have you actually answered many of the questions I've asked you?  And this isn't dismissal, it's completely not agreeing with you.  There's a difference.  

So you say that you haven't slighted me?  Isn't that for me to judge?  I say attacking your arguments isn't slighting you, but you get to judge that.  Why is it that only you are the judge here?  One way or the other.

Excessive profanity, so sorry to hurt your delicate feelings lad.  Thanks for another "judgment" about my use of profanity being excessive.  Line by line arrogance.  But it's not arrogant for a 15 year old boy to tell a 30 year old man his debate style is wrong or inappropriate?  You think you lack arrogance Loudnotes?

But let's get to the heart of the point, shall we?  You are sick of my style.  So what?  Why in the world should I change my style for you?  Have you told me why it's not a valid style?  (better not, because I've already given evidence and can supply text books more on it).  Is there a reason that your want for me to change my style is more important then my own preference for it?  What gives you the right to judge my style in the first place?

Now, before you dismiss this on the grounds that you are looking for others opinions, note that in the poll, and in previous posts, you've asked and said that I should change my style.  So I think I deserve an answer to those questions, as a start.


I've listened to other people opinions so many times Loudnotes, I find that statement a slight you asshole.  You fucking think that talking out of the side of your mouth isn't a slight?  

I listen to opinions when they have something behind them Loudnotes.  Plain and simple.  As I've pointed out, and you seem to have dismissed, Abe changed my mind on one topic not too long ago.  And, as pointed out, he did it through a strong, logical argument.  I guess that may be asking too much of you (yes, there's another slight back for ya).

And I'd respond that A) if you didn't understand my post it's probably my fault in the way I put it.  and B) I say that when the response to my post reflects it in a different light then the one I meant.  

I'd also add that everyone here has a high level of arrogance in their writing.  Tasty, Loudnotes, Bondo and myself all included.

Obviously we both still see very differently on this.  As a 30-year old man, I'm not really sure what drives you to debate with a 15 year old anyway.  But you seem to be very fixated on that - and whenever I or others contradict you, it becomes a fixation that you must "win".  This first started when I noticed that all you ever seemed to do in your arguments was attack Bondo.  I never accused you of attacking me, until then you started taking what I was saying about Bondo and rooting out every sentence with a slight flaw.  

If that's your style, fine.  However, as you may have noticed, no one on this board has quite the mental acrility necessary to respond adequately.  At least, if that's how you view it.  Bucc, I resent that we are constantly on the defensive in discussing things with you.  It doesn't seem wrong of me to suggest that you could refrain from attacking points once in a while.  Fine if it's necessary - but when was the last time you posted something purely original - not a vitriolic response to someone else?  You want reasons why you should change it?  How about your context?  How about the people you're debating with, and the goal of the debate?  So yes, you could change your style to be a little more accomodating to the people you're trying to talk with.  Maybe we're just too stupid Bucc, but it doesn't really matter.

As I said before, this age difference thing seems to have given you a certain feeling of moral and/or intellectual superiority.  If so, why are you here?  If you're so much smarter than we, why waste your time?  

And I started this thread not with the intention of our carrying on debate.  I want to hear other people's opinions, because all I hear from you is why I'm wrong.

And as for personal attacks - I also never said that attacking a point is a personal attack.  When you attack it in a way such as, "You're fucking wrong, asshole" I consider that a personal attack.  And if that's judgemental, too bad.  You know I am a moderator here and I don't particularly care to read through that crap.  So deal with it.

I did look at back at where it was covered - you assume too much.  But this is personal for me.  Your postings are making debate less engaging for me, personally.  I've tried to explain why, I never made a huge issue out of it at first except to let you know it was a problem.  However, you've intensified it if anything, as though you resent being criticized.  Maybe I can put it in a way that would be more appealing for you:

Buccaneer, some of us would appreciate some help in comprehending your postings.  Please back off on your attacking details a little bit.

Anyway, this is the kind of long drawn out response that is required to respond to your quotes.  Maybe you enjoy these kinds of things, but I don't.  Bondo doesn't.  I don't get the impression that anyone here does.  

Now, what will follow?  You'll quote things I just said, interpret them someway other than what I intended (of course, or else we'd be in agreement) and then say why that interpretation is wrong.  And if I were to continue playing the game, I would essentially need to restate this entire posting until some blessed soul led the debate off topic.

Does it matter?  Or are you just trying to slight me again?  You don't think your age should matter in anything you write here, but you are now placing a judgement on me debating with you based on your age.  That make sense to you?  Should I treat you like a 15 year old and ignore things based on that, or should I ignore your age and argue based on what you say?  If I should ignore you age and look at your message, as you've said before, then your statement about not being sure what drives me is kinda stupid, no?


And if the flaws are there, what's wrong with it?  Flaws in every sentence equals an overall flaw in the whole thing, doesn't it?


Quite wrong there.  I've found quite a few people on this board with the mental capacity to both respond well and make solid arguments.  Bondo just isn't one of them.  You don't seem to be either.  But don't sell everyone else short.  There are plenty of others that seem to be able to handle it.


You are right, there is nothing wrong with you suggesting it.  But you went way past that a long time ago.  You've demanded it.  You have every right to suggest it, and I have every right to not heed your suggestion, no?  


I do both, in the same post Loud, as is my style.  If you look into it, I start with what I see as something wrong, I expound on why it's wrong, then follow with what I think is right, with some logic behind it.  I give ideas in there.  Look at one of the previous war threads, where I draw the parallels between Iraq now and 1935 Germany.  Look at the abortion thread where I bring forth the ideas that you can't logically draw the line between conception and birth, that the line should be at one end or the other.  Or that we grant more civil rights to one group over another?  No, none of those are original arguments (for this board, because It would be wrong to say that they weren't influenced by others, not of this board).  

So, my ideas are there for others to take issue with Loudnotes.  So is the logic I use.  All you have to do is look.


How about my context?  Sure, asking that question is enlightening.  Oh, that was sarcastic if you didn't notice.

As for accamodating the people I'm debating with, why?  Do I ask you to change your style?  Do I tell you that you look idiotic using such a heavy vocabulary in public forum and you shouldn't do it because it bothers me?  No, and other then giving my opinion, I have no grounds to demand it, that's for damn sure.  

Maybe you (don't include others) are too stupid for it Loudnotes.  And if so, then it's not meant for you anyway.  If you are too stupid to understand it, then you are too stupid to worry about your opinion anyway.  Right?

Actually, if anything gives me the feeling of intellectual superiority, it's the stupidity of some of your posts.  The utter lack of logic that sometimes amazes one.

But I'll just turn that one around.  If you hate the way I debate so much, why not just ignore it, or go somewhere else?


My bad, you looked back, and didn't respond to my points, but just dismissed them out of hand without any acknowledgment.  I see.  Thank you for clearing up my mistake.  So instead of thinking you are too lazy to go back and read them, I should think you are just too arrogant to address them, as I asked before.


Is that a threat?  Is it?  I don't respond well to threats, so let me know.  

As for you not wanting to read through them, well, that's your responsibility in being a moderator.  Isn't it?  Don't like it, don't be a moderator.  That's simple, isn't it?  But until I see every name calling of me by Bondo deleted (oh, and there are so many) I don't expect to see any of mine deleted either.  Apply that moderation equally or not at all.


What does one have to do with the other?


Actually, so many of my questions went unanswered.  Why is your judgement better?  How have you not been judgmental or slighting me?  I've pointed out where I think you are.  What about your arrogance?  Are you not at least as arrogant as me?  If not, why do you think not?  There were even more questions up there and in the war thread, all "dismissed" with no response.  


What have I interpreted that was different then what you intended?  Correct me, please.  

LOL, now there's some arrogance for you.  If I interpret them the way you meant them, I'd have to agree.  You are full of yourself, aren't you Loudnotes?  Instead of just ignoring what I question, and restating your position, how about answering some of my questions, I usually post many of them?

I think loudnotes is a pretty smart and eloquent guy, especially for someone that's only 15. I don't think bondo is dumb either. Just wanted to to bring some positive energy to this thread  8)

Tasty, I don't think either of them is really dumb either.  Doesn't mean I have to agree with them or their posts.  Just like my not agreeing doesn't make them stupid.

Well, you're right in my inability to communicate in at least one sense, that I'm not making myself clear to you.

When I ignore things you say, it's because of the sheer volume of them.  I'll do this once - I'll quote everything you just said that I would have interpreted differently.  I don't have the resources - time or intelligence - to do this all the time.  So in the interest of better debate, I hope we could stop being so finicky.


I think you should ignore age, yes.  But since you brought it up, I have to wonder why such wisdom would deign to speak with such immaturity.  You were the one who suggested my age played a role in my arguments.  If you think it does, it's your perogative not to respect my opinions - but don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm younger than you.


There aren't flaws in every sentence Bucc.  A few of them, perhaps even most, do not stand well on their own, but I have argued that they are perfectly sound within the context of a whole argument.  Likewise, I'm trying to show you right now that anything you say can be similarly deconstructed.


Again this issue of intelligence.  You're responding to my sarcasm with sarcasm.  Seriously, what purpose does this serve?  And note that I have never once commented on your abilities as a person or intellectual - even in jest, yet you seem to jump at the opportunity to detract from me.


Of course you don't have to.  But don't get upset at people for ignoring parts of your posts when your posts are, as I've described, too much to respond to.  


Yes they are there, and visible.  However, since you only present your ideas in criticism of anothers', it provokes a response to the criticism, not to the idea.  Which is a clever way to avoid being called on your own ideas, am I wrong?

Yes, I notice sarcasm.  Do you?  And yes, context is important, and I'll be happy to change my style if it helps other people to read.  The only exception is that responses like these - your style that I'm addressing at the moment - take forever.  It's ridiculous.  And you have plenty of grounds.  If you want to debate with me, and the feeling is mutual, why shouldn't I accomodate you to some extent?  Notice I am still debating with you.  But it's overdone and wastes everyone's time.  By the way, does my vocabulary bother you?  These things are easily modified.  I wouldn't talk the same way to a kindergarten class as I would to a university professor.  Right now I don't think about what syntax I use - it's a general audience so I'll write whatever comes to mind.  But just let me know if something needs changing.  Have I not given you a decent reason for why you might try a different style?  I'm trying yours - give mine a shot.


Why shouldn't I include others?  We're all in the same boat. . .others have complained too.  None of us are stupid - if you want to play on the sarcasm that's fine, but we are reasonably intelligent people who have difficulty responding to you.  Don't be so arrogant as to assume that it's only due to the quality of your statements.  We've agreed on a lot in the past - many of those are good statements.  However, I'm not saying my method is any better than yours, only that yours isn't working for this community.  At least not for me, Bondo, and tasty.  That's why I wanted some more opinion in this thread.

Notice, by the way, that I didn't vote.

That would be an example of a personal attack.  Have I ever said anything remotely close to that?  What I'm saying is that sometimes I am forced to ignore half the things you say, which is frustrating when parts of them attack me directly.  But I would really rather not.  I never had anything against debating with or against you.


Not arrogant Bucc, just incapable.  Part of that has to do with not having time to respond to all this.  I'm on spring break right now, so I've got a chance to try out your quotation style.  It's very effective I'm sure - but it takes forever.  I want to discuss the big ideas, not analyze our personal flaws.  I have them, I know it, and so does everyone else.  Even you.  It's not arrogant to fail to respond to everything - it's arrogant to assume that everyone is going to respond to everything you say.

Normally I would have just ignored this.  Instead, I get to write a paragraph about how you took me out of context.  I was writing about profanity, especially in the context of a personal attack.  So no, it's not a threat, I'm not going to delete anything, I never even mentioned if you were the only one.  I merely said that since I have some responsibility over this message board, whatever that's worth, that it shouldn't be filled with profanity and personal attacks.  I showed you an example of one, and you haven't denied it.  So, we shouldn't have to read any more of that on this board, not I or anyone else.  Bondo should of course live up to the same standards.  But since you directed it at me, it made a slightly greater impression.  So yes, if you keep doing it, it will be edited, or deleted, or something.  Just stop.  Pretty simple isn't it?  


Bucc, this is the kind of response necessary to address every one of your posts.  3-4 full postings worth of material.  If there's something I haven't addresssed, I'm not really sure how that's possible.  Do you really think we should all have to do this every time anyone says anything?  The issue of your style is that it imposes itself upon others.  


Nope, I've shown you several places here you misinterpreted me.  It's possible to disagree with things I've said - I'm not so arrogant as to believe that's not the case.  But don't disagree with something other than what I meant.  That's pointless.


Well there you have it.  A Buccaneer posting in response to a Buccaneer posting.  What's next, an 8-page response to this 4-page one?  It can't keep building up forever.

By the way, thanks tasty.  I think we're all fucking genuises and I don't see why we can't all get along. . . :P

Anyway, those postings took me 45 minutes to write.  I don't want to take 45 minutes to respond to debate every day - sometimes several times a day.  Is that unreasonable?

One thing, in the year (approximately) that Bucc has been posting here, I've not once seen him do anything but be critical of my points.  He may agree on something minor (like saying he agrees that peacekeeping troops should be sent to Iraq prior to a war as long as Saddam lets them in) but on all general issues he has done nothing but attack my points.  Now I admit to being extremely liberal, there is no moderate part of me.  If Bucc is truly the slightly liberal leaning moderate that he claims, I find it quite impossible that he disagrees with me on every issue.  I've never found it necessary to pick out any flaw in the argument and attack it, I find it much more fulfilling and better for general debate when I post my own opinions in reply to others posting their own opinions.  I don't worry about the possibility and in fact the absolute assuredness that they have some logical flaw in their argument...we all do, yes, including you Bucc.  I just don't find attacking those flaws as conductive to debate, I actually find them to counteract healthy debate.  This is what the issue Loud is talking about, it is not about your specific method not being reasonable for challenging arguments in an acedemic sense...but for a casual debate, it is unneccesary and counter-productive.

On another note, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, who to Bucc's credit, we agree is an idiot.  But while listening to him call everyone opposed to the war wrong and picking apart the various arguments, taken out of context, to show it.  I realized that Bucc and Rush have the same exact arrogant, unproductive mannerisms.

     I'm gonna try to bust out some mediation here. There may be explosions and flame, so please stand back.

     Bondo and Loudnotes: I see where Bucc is coming from. He and I have discussed this same matter outside of the board. Bucc wants a certain rigor, so that the debate is not clouded by opinion being passed off as fact. I sympathize with that desire, and I think that it is a good standard to attempt to hold a debate to. If facts are accurate and opinions are demarcated as such, the topic under discussion can be discussed more easily, because there's no need to weed out truth from fiction (or opinion), and thus, facts and the conclusions drawn from them, and opinions and the conclusions drawn from them, can be discussed in a straightforward manner.

     As I've said, I like that idea. I attempt to hold myself to that standard, taking a few extra moments of care when I post to make sure that my facts are correct and my opinions are separate in the post. Bucc wants everyone to hold themselves to that standard, which is not unreasonable in and of itself, but it is unreasonable to expect it to happen. Bucc picks on Bondo above all because Bondo argues in so many debates. Someone who posts once or twice in one debate, then drops off the radar, would not incur Bucc's wrath. But Bondo is always in the thick of debates, and Bondo does not worry about making rigorous arguments, so that there is a large amount of effort that must be expended to try to keep incorrect or misapplied facts, and opinions stated as facts, from knocking the debate off-course. I agree, it would be nice if Bondo was a wee bit more careful. Loud, I guess he's just after you because you rub him the wrong way. I really don't know. One last thing: if Bucc considered you both to be wastes of flesh, retarded idiots not worth his time, etc., he would not bother deconstructing your arguments. Agreed, that's rather a backhanded way of showing respect, but Bucc is a stubborn guy. : D By way of example, note how Bucc responds to Rapid's posts: he doesn't.

     Bucc: You're being an asshole. As stated above, I sympathize and agree with your desire for more careful posting, but rather than outline what you want, or give a calm argument as to why Bondo's posts don't live up to the standard you desire, you set in very early on with a highly confrontational style against Bondo's posts, and often against Bondo himself (ad hominem, anyone?). I quite understand your frustration, but being a dick about it not only serves no purpose, it actually works against you in terms of arriving at the end that you want. The deconstructing-the-argument style of replying is incredibly useful in some circumstances, but in the general case Loud is correct: it only serves to slow the debate when you post four replies of word-by-word analysis. Yeah, correct gross errors and fallacies, use quotes to serve as reminders, but there's usually no purpose served by the level of nitpicking that is your wont. If a post is just one big collection of errors (which has happened here), that's one thing, but you jump on pretty much every word of people's posts. It doesn't help the debate.

     Everyone else: Move along, move along, nothing to see here...  ;)

At the risk of immediately making your argument unpalatable to the general public, I'll agree with that Loth.  Well said.  That pretty much covers both sides of the issue.

I agree with it generally except for one thing.  Bucc's reasoning for why an point is wrong is just as opinion-based as the argument he is breaking apart.  Also, these are not heavily fact based arguments.  We don't have most of the information that would go into a decision.  Also, just as statistics can be used to support different arguments, so can facts.  Just because he disagrees with my interpretation doesn't mean my interpretation is incorrect and his correct.

"pissing contest" is not a debating style rapid

You should understand, you don't have to change your style to address my points or questions.  You can use whatever style fits you.  You don't need to quote me, it's up to you how you do it.  The two don't have to be linked.

I don't care how you respond.  I simply state that ignoring some of the points and questions is poor form.  Like math, do you ignore some numbers and only put others in your equations?


I ask you to find where I've ever told you you were wrong just because of your age.  I know what got you on that bend, and it was me telling you to "grow up".  And, as I've tried to explain, that has nothing to do with your age.  You seem to take criticism of your arguments as a direct and personal attack all too often.  And what I said was you needed to grow up about that.  I don't care if you are 15 or 50.  That's still my opinion on that matter.

Another point I made was that someone your age and education is arrogant as hell to tell someone my age, with a formal degree that was heavy in debate, that I don't do it well, and that my style wasn't valid (which was Bondo's argument).  Well, all my formal training says it is.  And, isn't it presumptuous and arrogant of you to call my style invalid?


Yes, you have argued, but not successfully.  All you do is repeat that.  Not explain how or why.

And what I'm telling you is I don't agree.  In logic, it sure as hell doesn't work that way.  You can't build a valid argument on false premises.  So, I've asked this before, explain how that works.  Bondo's analogy about a house doesn't stand up (pun intended).  You can't build anything on a shaky foundation.


Problem with that theory Loudnotes is that I keep calling attention to my own ideas.  I keep asking for people to respond to them.  Those are not the actions of someone trying to avoid being called out on them, is it?


Here comes the presumption again.  What in the world, after I've told you that my college education was heavy in it, makes you think I haven't tried your style?  I don't like it.  You can use it, go right ahead.  I don't like it myself.

And no, I don't agree that you have given me decent reasons for changing it.  You complain that it's too hard for you to respond to, but I'm telling you I don't agree.  You don't have to respond in like.  You really don't.  If you don't believe me, look it up.  

You have to separate two things.  One, how many points I make, and Two, my style.  If my posts are so encompassing that you can't respond to every point, that is not because of my technique.  That is a different issue.  So please think about that and explain your problem more clearly.

The problem I have with you speaking for others is, there are two of you that are vocalizing the problem, and you are acting as if it's a problem to the whole community.  You and Bondo don't make up the whole community, do you?  My style seems to work for others.  And don't include Tasty in your threesome, because the way I read his post is he doesn't think I should be censored, and he sure doesn't seem to have a problem picking out my points and debating them with me.  Other's in the community don't seem to have the problem either.

So, saying your constant implications that the whole community has a problem with it seems, premature, to say that least, no?


What you seem to overlook Loud is yes, you've had many posts that attack me.  From your snide comments about why a 30 year old cares to debate here, to you coming into threads where your only comments are about my style, not the topic at all.  

So, I'm more direct and honest in my attacks.  If I think someone is being an asshole, I come right out and say it.  

You seem to think if you do it indirectly, it doesn't count.  Or do you still think you haven't attacked me either?  And please don't say you have but differently, because that doesn't really matter, does it?  You attack your way, I attack mine.  Just believe that your way can be as bad as mine to the beholder.


Again, style or number of points.  They are two very different things.


Not for me, but that's me.  Like I've repeated.  I don't expect you to follow this technique, unless it fits you.  You can respond to my points any way you wish, your technique isn't as important as the quality of your argument.

Actually, the context was there.  I didn't take it out of context at all.  You may be using that phrase incorrectly.  Context isn't your ideas, or how you meant it.  It's how it was said/written.  In the same area you made that quoted statement, you talked about more then profanity, didn't you?  You talked about attacking someone.  Well, you attack me, or is it still too bad that your judgment is the only one that counts?  

Now, add to this that I questioned it.  Flat out.  That's also not taking something out of context, is it?


Look above, that sure is hell isn't what you "merely said".  Not by a long shot.


And tell me, where are these standards?  Where are the rules?  Where does it say that profanity is allowed in this case, but not another?  Where does it say that direct attacks are not allowed, but sarcastic ones are?  Tell me, oh wise one, because you do it too.


And if I have, it's just as much your fault as mine.  Communication is by two people, for two people, etc etc.  Your writing could be just as much at fault, couldn't it?  In the case of your moderation, it sure as hell was.  If you MEAN you are going to be a more active moderator, and start editing/deleting personal attacks, from everyone, you should SAY that.  Not tell me "too bad" and "deal with it".  You should be able to understand the difference in the two messages you are sending, no?

But on top of that, I flat out don't agree with you on some things, and have asked for you to explain them, not just repeat them.  All you've done is repeat.  Even repeating it in a different style doesn't change it.


Nope, seems my reply is only 3 pages.  So much for another theory of yours.

And I've repeated myself quite a few times about you have to be more clear about style versus amount of content.  Is it I have too many points to respond to, or my style?  And if both, you still need to separate them out to talk about them, they are, after all, separate issues.

Bucc, you say not responding to every question/point is poor form.  The point is, when you type as much as you are, it isn't reasonable to reply to every question point.  Loud has stated this many times, most of us don't have as much free time as you to be typing.

Anyway Bucc, the reason we can't reply to your style in our own is you provide no general point to reply to.  You just provide tidbits.  The only real way to reply to those tidbits without being seen as ignoring things is to provide tidbit responses.  You can say we are free to post in our own style, but you certainly won't excuse it for not doing what your style does.

Wow, somewhat of a retarded thread, dont you think.....?
Bondo: You tend to ignore the main arguements i make and simply pick at one, usually marginal and irrelevant, point and ignore most of what i post. If i make the effort to write a 3 paragraph reply i want you to at least acknowledge all the points i make. You whine about bucc taking your arguements down point-by-point....well at least he does it thouroghly. You just pick out one little scrap and ignore the rest. And yes, looking at each "wall of the house" and proving they are shaky, can prove that the whole has is shit. Other times you have simply stop replying to me, which means that youre either agreeing with me or backing out. I can think of at least 2 threads that have ended like this...
Bucc: Sometimes a two paragraph reply can be just as effective as a three page dissertation.

Bucc and Bondo and Myself...

If we yell at each other and get in each others faces then the debating is pointless. Debates are to pull people onto your side, Or thats how I see it. And if I am yelling at Bucc thats hes wrong hes an idiot what is he thinking then even if I write the finest point ever Buccc wont listen. You have to use empathy, acknowledge each others GOOD points and then say "But the only problem with that" or something along those lines. Because if someone is arguing and gets in my face I am not going to all of a sudden agree with them. If you could just stay calm and realize we all have different visions on a world then more would be accomplished. I think that Bondo does usually answer main points of posts but Bucc if you would like all of your post answered perhaps simple questions with like indentations at each point or slashes would be helpful because I for one wouldnt drool over it time and again scanning for questions. Plus we all miss questions sometimes. Look I have my views and other people have thiers but in a short period of time I have realized that an attitude while arguing works backwardsly....I forgot that word so forgive me....Its like when my "uncle" asked for ice in spain and instead of trying to signal it just kept saying it louder and louder, thats not going to do anything. Just use calm and alternative means to get your point across and THAT is the best way to debate, in my opinion at least.


P.S. cursing does not amplifies your point, it just amplifies the need for an expanded vocabulary

Abe, I don't think it is my or anyone's obligation to reply to every point of every post.  I'll reply to the points I have something specific to talk about.  The thing I won't do is take the point out of the context of the whole argument, hence why I don't quote in most cases.  You say I don't reply to all your points, I say, sure I don't, nor should I have to for any reason.  Now if only Bucc would feel less obligation to do so.

Ah, that's where it's from.  And I was thinking the Papa John's you ate last night was responsible for it.   :o


I try not to, since it's usually beneath contempt.  But, it's hard to turn the other cheek sometimes, especially when dealing with such a complete flaming cocksucker as Rapid.


Sometimes.  I'm no saint, and I admit it openly.  But, I'm also not the only one, especially in this case.


It may not serve a purpose, you are right.  But, I am responding to his posts towards me as well.  Take note that Bondo starts the name calling, and making things personal most of the time, from my point of view.  And while it would be good to stay above it, I don't.  I admit that.   When I feel that Bondo has been slighting me, or attacking me, I attack right back.  When I feel Bondo has been making sound arguments, even ones I don't agree with, I respond in like and kind.  I'm not claiming to be better, you see.


One thing that is being exagerated and overlooked here is that it's not a word by word analysis.  Like in the case of this post, Loth, I'm using it as much as a reminder, as anything else.  If I were to respond to your points, after this much time had passed, I'd have to paraphrase what you said that I'm responding to to make it clear.  So, I think lumping it in is nitpicking is a bit extreme.

Couple more things.  The point about Bondo mixing opinion and fact being the core issue isn't quite true.  Yes, Bondo's habit of basing opinions on lots of other opinions he's passing off as fact is quite irksome.  But, that's not the part that bugs me so much.  What makes me go after Bondo is his hypocracy, where he attacks, but damns others, where he insults, but blasts others for it.  That's usually the trigger that sets off.  That, and lets not forget how much he's insulted me and my friends.

As for why Loudnotes, simple.  Loudnotes has chosen to target my style.  He's come into four or five threads now, not commenting on the thread topic itself, but just bitching about my style.  Now he's followed Bondo down the ultimate post, making it just about a member (which didn't work out well for Bondo when he did it about me or Ace the first two times).  Why?  If it's him doing his moderator job, it's a piss poor job of it, because he's brining the threads off topic, among other things.  Loud claims he hates the personal attacks, while doing them himself.  Sure, he's indirect about them, but he still does.  That disgusts me.  Be open and honest about them.  Don't lie about it, even to yourself.  

Not only don't I agree on that as a whole, I'd repeat what Loth said.  We are careful to make it clear which is which.  You, Bondo, try to pass off opinion as fact all too often.  And I've used quoting in the past to show you where.  If you want examples, I'll be glad to go pull some.


What do you mean we don't have most of the information?  In the abortion thread, what information don't we have?  In the gun control thread, what information are we lacking?  

And, yes, statistics can be used incorrectly.  It's done all the time.  Go back to the great gun control thread.  You used the fact that there are less homicides per capita in most European countries to show that huge gun restrictions worked.  Problem is, you ignore the whole scientific method in that, along with lots of other facts.  Which was using statistics wrong.  Then, when I bring up the stats about states in the USA with "liberal" CCW policies having much lower homicide rates, or the three university studies on it, you dismiss them out of hand.  Because it doesn't support your conclusion.  

You see Bondo, you sure seem to form your conclusion, then look for evidence to back it.  Like you were righting an english paper.  Problem is, Logic is math and science, not an english paper.  In a debate, you don't get credit for just finding a source that agrees with your position, you have to find both sides of the argument before you ever walk in.  But you honestly seem to judge your work like you would a highschool paper.  Here's my thesis, here's it's support, now, you can't knock it, because it's all there.  Well, if that's the case, save it for english class.


You are right, it's not just because I disagree with it.  Which is why I always support my arguments with more then just "you are wrong", or dismissal.   Which, is why I write like I do.


A) Yes, I do say it's poor form and disrespectful (as bad as insulting in my opinion).  Notice that you don't disagree with that here.

B) I call bullshit on that second statement.  How many posts do you have in the past two weeks Bondo?  You sure as hell demonstrate that you have the time, or you wouldn't have the post counts that you do, would you?  You may not have the inclination, but implying that you don't have the time is just utter bullshit.  Quit with the bullshit already.


Again, bullshit.  That's your opinion with nothing to back it.  Abe, Tasty, Loth, Cookie have all disagreed with me in the past, and all addressed the points, none of them adopting my style.  

So, what are you basing your opinions on here Bondo?  The fact that YOU can't manage it?

One more note about the amount, notice I'm replying to TWO posts of Bondo, something I often do in one of my responses.  

Bondo, point by point doesn't mean out of context.  Get off that already.  I've asked repeatedly what I'm pulling out of context, and you don't respond to it.  That does nothing but leave me to believe that you can't.  (and why would it make me think anything else).

Quoting the whole thing actually helps to prevent you from taking things out of context, doesn't it?

Sorry if most of your points can't manage to stand on their own, but that's not anyones fault but yours.  Isn't it?  Hell, look how many times I've actually asked you for more context around something, because you just don't supply enough for clear meaning (think abortion thread and how many times I asked you to define an age and WHY).


Way to still disagree without any meat behind it Bondo.  You expect me to feel less obligation to do so when all you've done is say "no, I don't agree".  Take that bullshit and sell it, I'm sure it's great for greening up some lawns.  But don't pass it off as reason.  I've given you reasons why you should, you dismissed them again (didn't even address them).  All you've said is NO.  there's no reason, or logic or even explanation.  Just your answer.  Which is so typical of your arguments.

I agree.

Bucc, volume and quality are not the same thing.  

You did not respond to every single point I just made, nor did I expect you to.  But don't criticize neglect of points if you can't cover every one of them yourself.  I don't really see how your arguments are any different from mine in that you repeat yourself as well.  And yes, you've stressed that you have collegiate training in debate.  That's great - and maybe I can even pick up a thing or two from you.  But realize that this isn't a college debating class.  Unless you're just saying things to inform us, debate in a way that encourages response.  And if people whom you previously had no problem debating with, such as myself, recognize some sort of rift in the debates because of your style, and tell you, why are you so defensive?  I'm not saying my way is "better" or even that you're wrong.  Nor have I called you an asshole, or been arrogant other than to say that you could try things differently.  I still don't see why you've refused.

I brought up being a moderator because I don't think you need to call people assholes or tell them to fuck off when they disagree with you.  That's not unreasonable by any standards.  I've tried to be as impersonal about this as possible - this was never about me until you attacked me personally, and directly.  If you consider it an insult, snide and low, whenever I suggest something you do is wrong, how can you accuse me of arrogance?

However, what you haven't done, although you accuse me of the same, is provide a rationale of why it would hurt you to cut back on the quoting - at least avoiding these 3+ post answers to everything.  Of course you don't have to.  But it seems as though the community as a whole would benefit from it.  Again, I speak for the community because I noticed a problem, one that was initially wholly impersonal to me.  It is you that have turned this into a pointless battle of wills.

Furthermore, as I've stated before, I started this thread with the intention that the community itself should make some comment as opposed to our repeating ourselves, or restating ourselves, if you will, for each other constantly.  Now, Mr. Lothario has made some steps toward mediation.  Would it pain you to consider what he's said?  Have I not shown myself to be open to compromise?

{edit - post made while I was replying}
I was already debating in those threads, which were drawn off topic, as you say, but if you make attacks in those threads, I'll respond to them.  And Buccaneer, there's a huge difference between calling someone an asshole and "snidely" saying that they're wrong.  Or saying that their postings are arrogant.  I still have nothing against you as a human being, just your postings.

You are wrong, not all posts are alike.  I don't use an extended method like you so each of my posts takes a minute or two, not thirty.  So my less than 10 posts a day comprises at most an hour of my time.

And Bucc, I love how you say I've dismissed all your reasons for posting about every point, but you ignore that you dismiss all my reasons out of hand.  I say there are time limitations and you spout that it is bullshit.  Well guess what, you don't know my time schedule so you are pulling that out of your ass.  I say that this being a casual debate, not a forensics competition, that I have no duty to reply to all issues, but only the ones I want to, you say that I need to.

You just don't seem to understand....this is a FORUM, not a debate competition or acedemic papers.  You should stop treating it as more than it is.

Also, I maintain, when you say something is wrong with my argument, it is almost always a case in which your subjective view takes something one way and you act as if that is solid proof.  This is especially true when you say I'm a hypocrite for supporting anti-war protesters but not those that boycott the French.  I've stated many times now clearly why I have those views and it is not at all a contradiction.   But you ignore my reasons and make your own reasons for why I think a certain way.  You don't have all the knowldege, you don't know how I mean things so you can't say how I mean things.  I do know how I mean things, so I can say.  And no, we don't have all the information about abortion or guns, when talking about abortion, both pro-life and pro-choice are reasonable sides, but you act like there is a "truth" about things that are purely subjective.

Here is what you should do, argue WHAT an argument says, not HOW it is said.

Let me know what I missed.


I've stressed it in response to a couple people here (you and Bondo) making claims such as "it's not a valid style", and "I know just as much about it as you." (one of my past favorites from Bondo, because after I named the sources of my style, he never responded).

I've pointed it out to give example of your own arrogance, and said that many times.  You've not addressed that point, but circled around it, like you don't understand it.  You've called me arrogant many times, I've used this as a prime example of your arrogance and presumption.  Am I wrong?


Damn, you are blind then Loud.  You have implied I was wrong often.  Need I go back and show you where?  You have been arrogant about it, as I've pointed out many times.  You haven't refuted any of those either, you just keep denying it.  

It's not that you have complained about my style that pisses me off.  It's that you demand it be changed.  How many times have I said if you don't like it, don't respond at all?  Drop it and leave it be?  But you don't.  You come into other threads, and you make new ones, all about it.  I've told you that you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm not changing anything, because you've given me nothing that outweighs what I've said, but you keep attacking my style, don't you?  So, under that light, why do you think I would be defending?  I can't believe you are so blind to your own style as to not see it, but it's either that or you ignore the fact you are doing it.


I told you to fuck off, because you were demanding that I change my style.  Not bringing up politely any problems you had, but rudely, over and over.  And, reasonable or not, as I have said, you need to define what's acceptable and not, ahead of time, and apply it all around.  Bet I can go back and count how many times Bondo has called me names and insulted me, and it will be close to equal.  Wanna bet?  So if you are going to act as a moderator, get out of the argument, and moderate across the board.  Don't moderate against the side you don't agree with.  For that is exactly the way it came across.

You once accused me of shouting someone down here.  But that's really what you have been doing with me of late.  Every thread I've been in of late, you come in banging your drum of not liking the way I post.  Not talking about the topic as much as you talk about me.  I've answered you, more then once.  Not only do you not accept my answers, but you continue with your constant drone about not liking my style.  

Now that is funny.  Complete bullshit, but funny.  No Loud, you and Bondo turned it into a battle of wills.  You did that as soon as you didn't take my first no for an answer.  You see, you aren't arguing a point.  You aren't bringing up debate styles, their pros and cons.  You haven't named one.  All you've done is attack me and my use of a technique.  I've told you that I'm versed in other techniques, and this is the one that fits me.  You are free to not like it.  But I'm free to listen to you and not change a thing.  I said this all long ago.  You don't like my style, fine.  You tell me to change it, I say no.  Tell me again and again, I say fuck off.  

It is the fact that you and Bondo continue to harp on the subject that makes it an endless battle.  

You've asked me to change, I've asked why I should.  You've given some reasons, I don't feel those opinions are enough to warrant a change.  I've said it too many times now.  You continuing to mention it isn't going to change it.  


To what end?  It is yet another attack on me and my style, to try to convince me to change it, right?  You couldn't convince me, so you start a thread trying to gander support, right?  That's how I see it, tell me how it isn't these things?


How presumptuous of you to imply that I haven't considered it.  This is the type of insult and attack you use against me, while trying to play the innocent.  I don't buy it.

Or does consider it mean I have to agree with it all and change something?  Not in my dictionary.

And I don't care if you are open to compromise or not.  It's not on point.  You've asked me to change my style, all because it's hard for you to respond.  I've said no, that isn't enough reason for me.  What about that don't you get?


I call bullshit and direct your attention to the post you made to Ace and I, in a thread you were not in, that just said we were playing devils advocate and to back off.  There was nothing on topic about that, and you weren't in the conversation yet either.


Loudnotes, there you go again, implying that your way is better.  To me, your way is worse.  I'm more open and up front about my insults, but you insult just as much.  All those snide comments you make are just as insulting, and being the one you are making them at, I would know, wouldn't I?  

So don't tell me what's more insulting, that's completely subjective.  I find you insulting as hell, so get off your high horse.  Difference is, I don't pretend not to insult back.

One last though, and I'll even make it stand out here, in another post.  I made two very big points that you still haven't addressed, that I would like addressed.

First, I managed to do it in less posts, which you deemed impossible.  I often combine many responses into one post, which using quotes enables me to do with ease.  Some acknowledgment of that is called for I think.

Second, and more importantly, I repeated over and over that you are mixing issues.  Is it the mass of points I bring, my style of using quotes, or both?  You really need to distinguish the issues to be dealt with.  I don't know how many times I said it, but you either missed or dismissed it.  So I'm asking again.  Because while you focus most of your comments in the past on my use of quotes, your biggest bitch seems to be in the volume of points I make to be responded to.  Do you not see that these are actually two issues?  

Props to Evill for Banning Rapid too.

pffff Hal gets no props on his excellent peaceable debating style post? At any rate Bucc you do sometimes rant on and on and if there was a clear concise point Im sure people would be more inclined to answer. Sometimes your full page arguments can be summed up in one paragraph. That goes for others too just Bucc does it a lot

Zaitsev, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  That doesn't make me inclined to change my style at all though, being your opinion.  Which is what I've been explaining all along, because the first few times I said it that simple, wasn't enough.

Bucc, here is my suggestion, and I think it is reasonable.  You are smart, instead of using your intelligence to try and demolish others' arguments, use it to make your own.  If someone else's argument is indeed weak, then yours will stand out and will be the one people accept.

Basically, don't consider it your duty to attack another person's stance or make sure there are no factual or logical inaccuracies.  Just consider it your duty to make factual, logical arguments and let things be as they will.

Bondo, I've heard that suggestion, and rejected it.  

Here's my suggestion.  Accept the fact I do it differently then you and let it be.

I'm sorry to hear that.  You will continue to look like a pathetic person who is desperate to be thought of as smarter because he can tell other people that they are wrong or have weak arguments (them actually being wrong or having weak arguments being quite unrelated to the claim).

Ah, but that wasn't a personal attack, was it?

Where is Loudnotes and his talk of moderation?  I'll tell you, only directing it in one place.  We have Rapid doing his normal job of taking pathetic little pot shots at me any chance he gets (not that I expect any better from him), and we have this crap from Bondo, that, since I don't take his advise, he's going to thow out that crap.  You see Loudnotes, that is why I scoff at your talk about moderation.  It's one sided.

Bondo, you are the ultimate in arrogance (ok, it's a close race between you and Rapid).  Since I chose to continue in my own technique, regardless of your feelings, you are going to be a cocksucker.  Go right ahead then.  Way to embrace differences.  Way to accept others.  Asshole.  

Yes Bondo, and you'll continue to look like an illogical fop that forms opinions which can never stand scrutiny, who can't actually defend a position with reason and fact, and who makes up excuses about not having the time, while spending more time then anyone posting.  Oh, and bitchy, I forgot bitchy.  So, like I said when this all started, fuck off.  

Personal attack...yes.  The truth about how your posts reflect on you...yes.

Bucc, you continue not to understand that you aren't proving anything about my ability to argue because the reasons you use for saying it is weak are based on your opinion.  We are arguing subjective issues, no one is right, but you have the arrogant assumption that some are wrong.  Like you've said many times, it isn't black and white.  Now stop acting like an argument is either good or bad because it isn't.  What is bad to you because you interpret information in one way is not bad to another interpretation.

I don't know why I bother since you are so clearly above getting off your high horse and realizing the bullshit you spout trying to disregard people's stances.  You do it to mine and you do it to Loud's.  You simply write off the views because you don't agree with the interpretation.

This has gotten blown way out of proportion.  

1.  I interjected in your and Ace's bashing of Bondo because I personally was tired of it.  I don't think I'm the only one.  As a moderator, I felt within my grounds to make that judgement.
2.  You are annoyed when people fail to respond to the total of your posts.
3.  I simply cannot respond to everything you say when you quote as you have been doing.
4.  In my 5-post example, you failed to respond to every unique idea.  That was the point, no one needs to   pick out each detail.  
5.  It doesn't help much that the people who've been responding here are the ones for whom you have the greatest disdain - Bondo and Rapid.  I'm not trying to question whether that's called for - I only wanted to control the vitriol.
6.  I have no dog in this fight.  So you may say it's arrogance, but it's really just the viewpoint of an outsider.  I am someone who likes to debate in this community though, and you've made that increasingly difficult.

7.  For the first 4 months you posted on this board, your first 200 posts or so, you used quotes intermittently - about as often as I do.  Your arguments were no less effective - so don't say other styles don't work for you.  In mid October you switched to this method almost exclusively.  Fine - your choice.  But if deep in the wells of a multi-post response you say something offensive in passing, it provokes this kind of response

8.  I have not, do not, and will not slander you personally, simply because I disagree with you.  Show me something I've said that's as insidious as you claim - that isn't anything more than criticism.  
9.  Whether it's my fault or yours, you have not taken my criticism well.  You don't have to.  But what's with all the spite?  In the past I called you on your attacking Bondo - and it was resolved for a while.  We were pretty amicable.  Was I arrogant then?
10.  I accept that I can't force you to change your posting style.  But why do you reject my suggestions so precipitously - does it have anything to do with my agreeing with Bondo to some extent?  There is one issue - you ask that your posts not be ignored, yet you tell me to fuck off for wanting you to post in a way in which I won't have to ignore part of it.
11.  Ultimately, I don't understand why you are completely inflexible on this.  I'll admit I may not have gone about suggesting change in the best manner. But how would it hurt you to accomodate me a little.  You've done it before.  I know you don't want to do it for Bondo, but I've frequently enjoyed debate with you - and since I've brought this up you've only intensified the way you quote.
12.  I have no intention of moderating your posting style.  But as I see it, I will edit excessive profanity or insults towards anyone in the future.  Notice that I haven't done anything at all up until now.

You asked in italics what exactly I'm objecting to.  The main issue for me is two-fold.  Quotes in general are fine - I've just "named" your "style" quoting for convenience.  So, my suggestion:
1.  Length.  While no one wants their points ignored, try focusing more on any one issue, instead of feeling like you have to respond to everything.  When I mentioned the whole of the argument, or Bondo used his walls analogy, the idea was that you don't have to object to every detail.  Mention them in passing, but concentrate on the main idea.  
2.  Offensive.  This style is very forward in attacks.  Perhaps that played into my dislike of the infamous "personal attacks" against Bondo - but it's very easy to move from breaking down every statement to breaking down the person behind them.  Even when used in response to someone else's attack, it inevitably puts them on the defensive.  If you've taken the time to address every detail I say, and especially if you interpret a detail other than the way I meant it, I feel compelled to answer in kind.  Can you see where, in a place such as this, that could be a pain?

I'd like to stress that I don't think your style is invalid at all.  In fact, the main problem I have with it is that it's a little too good.  Can we have debate without being so argumentative that every question is a contest?

Now, Bucc.  This post hasn't been exactly submissive, but I've tried to make it clear that I haven't been perfect, nor have I been completely wrong.  I'd like to end this - and if only Rapid will refrain from agreeing with me, there might be a chance for that.

I should mention, I'm sorry for things I've said that have been construed as personal attacks.

As per usual, you spout your opinion as being "the truth".  


Ah, yes, I couldn't possibly understand, could I?  Bondo, I'm really sorry that you don't have a full grasp of logic, but that's not my problem.  There aren't different logic's, as you once claimed (and I'm still waiting to hear the name of the text book for it).  Pointing out a weak argument isn't any more opinion then a math teacher pointing out that 3+3 does not equal 9 to a child.  Logic and math are both like that.  


Again, you are dead wrong there Bondo.  An argument can be good or bad.  Really, where do you come up with this bullshit?  2+2=4 is a good argument, 2+2=5 is a bad argument.  I'm putting it in it's simplest terms for you.  You can have both good and bad arguments.  

The flaw I point out most often in yours would translate to:
3 + _ * 85 - (4+_-_) = 27  With those spaces, missing numbers, the argument has holes.  It's not a valid argument.  


LOL.  Now that is profound.  Of course I write off the views because I don't agree with your interpretation.  Why in the hell would I take your suggestions when I don't agree with your interpretation?  Are you really this stupid Bondo?  Duh, yeah, I'll listen to you Bondo, duh, what you say doesn't make much sense to me, but that's no reason not to listen to you, duh.  That has to be one of the stupidest things you've said so far.

Ah, use of numbers, now for this, I don't have to quote as much.

1. First you denied doing it, now you did it as a moderator.  My point is you still did it, I wasn't talking about your motives.

2. Yes, that does annoy me.  As I said, I think it's rude.

3. Bullshit.  You've done it.  Others do it.  What you should say is you CHOSE not to.  Which I've said, is your choice.

4. You forget that I asked what I missed.  I intended to answer all your points.  If I missed one, let me know so I can correct it.

5. It doesn't help that they are both dumbasses either.  Rapid hasn't contributed anything but his normal background noise of bitching.  And Bondo is his normal self.  I'm bad, I'm wrong, and I should just listen to his opinion.  Worse, he talks out of his ass about logic and debate styles, calling mine invalid, when I've pointed him to texts on it.  Not much there to change my mind.

6. Your viewpoint is fine.  Your insistent driving of this is where the arrogance started.  You couldn't just take no for an answer.  You decided to question my technique, and keep questioning it.  You don't like it, great, thanks for your opinion.  But, as I've said many times, it takes more then your opinion for me.  You and Bondo both seem to think I should do it based upon opinion alone.  When I've asked your opinion on other classic styles, I haven't heard a response.  I told you before.  If you want to debate about technique, then debate about technique, it's pro's it's cons, it's application, and other techniques.  Don't keep telling me it's hard for you, because I'll just keep telling you that's not reason enough for me.  

7. My style is my own.  Yes, it can evolve.  But it's not going to change based upon your opinion.  Sorry.

8. Loudnotes, just because you don't find it as insulting to say shit like "I really don't understand why a 30 year old man spends, blah blah blah" as calling someone an "asshole", doesn't mean that others don't find it that insulting.  I'm one of those others.  I find those comments every bit as rude as profanity.  

9. The spite comes from not your initial comments, but from your habit of bringing it up in every thread of late (something you didn't do last time).  The spite comes from the arrogance that is in your posts this time, that was lacking before.  Most of all, it's in the fact that you basically demanded that I make the change, regardless of how I felt about it.

10. No, it has nothing to do with whom you agree.  It has to do with the fact that I just haven't seen enough reason to change it.  Face it, you are trying to change me, you have to convince me.  So far, you haven't.  I've even defended my position, not that I had to, but you and Bondo seem to reject that as well.

11. As I've said, I really haven't seen a reason to change it yet.  Sorry, but I, above all others, am entitled to my own opinion on my debate style.  Right?  It's my opinion, that counts in the end on this specific issue.  And you haven't given me enough to change that opinion.  I do admit to upping my intensity every time I was told I wasn't allowed to do it, because either of you telling me what I am allowed or not allowed to do is unacceptable.  And both of you quit asking long ago, and went to telling.  Telling fell upon deaf ears, and always will.

12. If that's the standards for the board, that's the standards for the board.  If board standards are applied equally, I have no problem with it.  I'll be interested to see what you define as insults, since things you do that I find insulting, you don't.  Where are the guidelines anyway?  And if you really care about moderation, why the hell does Rapid get away with attempting to start flame wars all over the forums?  Seems he tries to pick a fight with me in every thread he's in, even when I'm not.  And not just me either.  So if you are really serious about moderating, I'd love to hear why that is allowed.  Heated debate is one thing, trooling for flame wars is another.

Here's one of the reasons I think you are arrogant (it's either that, or you just ignore my points).  I've stated, often, why I disagree with this point of view.  Instead of talking to me about it, discussing my opinions and what I've learned on it, you just keep telling me not to.  I find that arrogant.  I disagree with you on this point, and you repeating it isn't going to change my mind about it.  Repeating yourself while ignoring what I've said on this issue isn't debate, it's you preaching.


First, the fact that I often ask for someone to better explain their position when I don't understand it seems to have gone overlooked.  

Second, you feel compelled to answer in kind, I see nothing wrong in that at all.  You are the one that has the problem with it, not me.  So restating it in this manner doesn't really change anything, does it?

Third, I see some people having trouble with it, I see others not.  Bondo having trouble with it doesn't concern me in the least.  Bondo will have trouble with what I say, no matter how I say it.  He's proven that often enough in the past.  Even when, as you talked about earlier, I tried to compromise, and not attack him so much, it didn't change a whit in how he responds to me.  Hence, my style doesn't matter.  That's even more reason not to change my style, when I have, it did no good from my point of view.  It may have made you and Bondo happier in that time, but it didn't change a thing for me.  So why should I bother with it?  I have no gain, and I sure as hell don't like Bondo enough to do something just to be nice to him.  You also haven't given me much reason to want to do it for you.


Ending it has always been in your power.  You have always been allowed to accept me for how I debate, or not.  To this point, you've chosen not so far.  You can accept it or not.  If you want to convince me it's wrong, you've gone about it in the entirely worst way.  I've told you where those keys are, but you don't seem to pick up on them at all.  So, in the end, you will do what you want, and I will do what I want.  It's not me that has asked you to change, it was you telling me.  So you've always been able to keep it from going this far.

Well so much for that.

As long as you post as you have, I will answer only parts of your arguments - don't object to me if some idea goes unanswered.  If you ever write a coherent set of paragraphs again, I will do my best to respond to that whole entity.

By the way - try starting a thread sometime.  I can't remember the last time you did - it'd be nice to see you initiate some debate instead of always reacting to it.