Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:14:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1011 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> I have endeavoured to read cites posted and my reading comprehension is
> pretty good. If I come away with a different conclusion than other people,
> it doesn't mean I misunderstood, it could mean we have differing opinions.
> Not from you, but the 'refutations' I have received for some of my posts in
> the past are, 'He's Canadian, his opinion does not matter', 'He's trolling,
> his opinion does not matter', 'He's sounding like so 'n so, his opinion does
> not matter', 'He believes in God, his opinion does not matter.'
>
> I will be the first to admit I'm wrong--this very thread bears that out.
> That said, When I refute every single 'niggly' point made by someone with
> what I consider to be a very logical framework and understanding of the
> issue, and then the entire thread gets deleted and in its place I'm told I'm
> wrong, with absolutely no points refuted *at all* (and this has happened
> numerous times), I begin to wonder about the ability to compromise, the
> ability to see a 'bigger picture', the ability to see things 'outside the
> box', the ability to debate the points and issues without attacking the
> person, in others.
I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to
you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate
a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that.
What I would question is whether that's happening as much as it appears to.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments that look like: (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) If the point that still stands is "Everything in parenthesis was added by David", that is correct. If, however, the point that still stands is "and is incorrectly associated with the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
