 | | Re: This should be required reading for this group... —James Brown
|
| | | (...) It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with? And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning. Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been observed here, in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: This should be required reading for this group... —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: This should be required reading for this group... —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) You know, I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, or not. Certainly mocking, but your target is ambiguous. If you honestly feel the link I posted is worse than useless, why not just say so? James (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: This should be required reading for this group... —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Not that ambiguous I'd hoped. I was just being evil. In part, I quoted something from the last day or so of this newsgroup's postings -- I'd not want to call it out in particular beyond what I have done. In the main, I think your purpose and (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: This should be required reading for this group... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) But not always, regrettably. Yes, I agree. It is good to be able to remind people that debate involves reason or it isn't debate. Interesting discussion perhaps but not debate. We have a number of high quality debaters here and I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
