Subject:
|
voodoo (Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:02:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
776 times
|
| |
|
|
Be carful Dave Larry may not like some you comments. I remeber you offer
advise to him before:
==+==
Larry
> People are always welcome to urge me to ignore him, it's great advice, but
> as soon as they say "and there's no difference between the two of you" they
> can pretty much count on my tuning them out, as they no longer have standing
> with me to comment on it.
Scott
This sounds almost threatening. You must be pretty thin skinned Larry. Do
you keep a little black book of all of those who "no longer have standing"
with you, or do you use voodoo dolls?
==+==
He never did really reply to me, but I did feel a sharp pain in my bum just
after I posted that message. :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I have a firm grip on reality. I'm not so sure you do. I'm not the only one
> > > who thinks that either.
> >
> > Should we take a poll on who has a firmer grip?
> > Or perhaps on who is a more valuable contributor?
> > Or perhaps on who is more annoying?
> > Or more clueless?
> >
> > Heck, I'd even accept the outcome of a poll with these three choices:
> >
> > - Ban Scott from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
> > - Ban Larry from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
> > - Ban neither of them, they're both fine enough
> >
> > (although I won't accept "ban both", sorry, it's me OR you that has to go)
>
> I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above
> options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see
> actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content.
>
> A poll to the first set of questions would perhaps be more interesting-- but
> still perhaps somewhat weighted. After all, perhaps someone would rate Larry
> as a 9 on cluelessness and rate Scott as a 10, yet be forced to say Larry
> was less clueless, despite their obvious view that Larry was also highly
> clueless.
>
> -------------------------
>
> Larry
>
> Debating skill: 9
> Cluelessness: 2
> Stubbornness: 6
> Openness: 7
> Humility: 2
> Annoying: 6
>
> Notes:
> Larry seems to usually have a good grip on what his position is, and is able
> to back up his point sufficiently well. When he doesn't have a firm grip on
> his position, he's occasionally been known to fluctuate, and typically
> doesn't back his position up well-- only because these times are when basic
> philosophic principles are at stake. The bonus to Larry is that he is fairly
> open to changing his mind-- it just doesn't happen much if at all.
>
> The largest fault of Larry's is probably his occasionally quick-to-judge
> attitude towards points he feels he's already addressed. Sometimes Scott
> (for example) will have a perfectly valid point and Larry will gloss over it
> calling it a non-issue without giving it a 2nd thought. It doesn't happen
> often, but it happens.
>
> He's also got an ego. He treads on ground confident that he's done the best
> possible job of defending it that there can ever be, which often isn't the
> case. However, he does have reason to think so. As far as debating goes,
> there aren't many who can get Larry to the itchy point. Most of his
> convictions stand firm and can be well backed up.
>
> ------------------
>
> Scott
>
> Debating skill: 4
> Cluelessness: 3
> Stubbornness: 9
> Openness: 4
> Humility: 5
> Annoying: 8
>
> Notes:
> Scott's generally got some work to do on debating form. This is quite
> possibly his largest issue. He seems to take o-t-debate as a very fast-paced
> forum, paying little time towards each reply. Replies are often quickly put
> out, with little organization or thought involved. They do not seem to
> follow the general debating format wherein one would state one's
> assumptions, the problems with the proposed theory, then propose a new
> theory, admitting any weaknesses it had.
>
> But don't assume too quickly. Scott often has a point, even though it's not
> stated well. It's merely that he doesn't put the time/effort into voicing
> it. When forced (upon occasion), Scott has proven that he is fully capable
> of being less clueless, more open, and more insightful.
>
> He also suffers from stubbornness. He doesn't let an issue drop very easily,
> and often prods and prods and prods until a response is given. Further, when
> cornered, he doesn't like admitting his faults. The one upshot to Scott over
> Larry is that Scott is typically less assuming of his own position being
> "right". You'll seldom hear Scott defending his own stance, and more often
> hear him attacking others'.
>
> ----------
>
> My suggested action to Larry is to ignore Scott, until/unless he has a
> well-formed point. And don't *TELL* him he's got a malformed point, just
> ignore it. Rewarding ill-formed points with responses will only get you more
> ill-formed points.
>
> My suggested action to Scott is to spend some real *time* in examining and
> writing your debate points. Re-read Larry's posts a couple times to make
> sure you know where you stand. Ask yourself questions that you think Larry
> will ask of you in response and respond to those in your initial post, or
> structure your response so that those responses are invalid/useless. Or, of
> course, if you don't want to spend the time, then don't presuppose as much
> as you do. Admit your shortcomings and attribute them, rather than
> dismissing them.
>
> And to all of you, re-examine your position when it's been challenged. The
> typical response to a challenge is to defend it all the more instead of
> re-examining it. You shouldn't need others to *force* you to that point,
> unless you actually can't do it yourself.
>
> Of course, this is all just me talking from the sidelines. I haven't read
> everything, and if I had, I'm sure I'd still have my own warped view of things.
>
> $.02,
It's worth at least $0.05!
Scott A
> DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content. A poll to the first set of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
