Subject:
|
Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:37:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1237 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
(Deleting a whole lot of things I agree with.)
The contradiction with the dictionary
> definition (in the case of books, or sex ed) comes from the "systematic"
> and "doctrine" bits, I think. (But this might be the kind of debate over
> meaning that irritates you..?)
>
> Chris
Please note that I am only using the names Beavis and Butthead in the next
paragraph to differentiate between two debaters. Any similarity to any real
person in purely coincidental.
No, what "irritates" me is when Beavis, rather than debate the ideas that
Butthead has posted, ceases debating the topic to request/demand concrete proof
of an idea/philosophy/statement posted by Butthead, the sole purpose of which
is to discredit Butthead. This usually leads to Beavis refuting any proof
Butthead provides. By this time the initial idea presented by Butthead is
totally forgotten. Its counterproductive.
It begins to remind me of an old Murphy Brown episode. The union was going to
strike unless management met their requests. Neither side would talk to the
other side. Murphy gathered them all in her living room, pulled out a ruler,
told them all to drop their pants and she'd settle this thing once and for all.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
