×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Scott wrote:
Despite that I had already given my reasons why I didn't like that as much,
you persisted in making me prove that my way was better -- without giving
ANY reason why your way was better.
In other words, put the burden of proof on Scott, and then every time he
wastes his time explaining it, come back and give some alternate solution to the
problem so that Scott has to come up with another example or another reason why
his way is better.
<<
Scott, welcome to the world of "Responding to Pluta 101". Or as it used to be
referred to: "Doctor, it hurts when I do that..."
I knew you'd figure it out.
Usually I (and I don't know why) get a private email from whomever is Joe's
latest debate partner/victim asking me if Joe is really an "expletive deleted"
or what?
What I tell them is that from my observations Joe is a good guy. Sure he loves
to talk, loves to respond, and enjoys provoking "you" (whomever "you" is). But
unlike the knowledge with logical and reasoning you might find in many academic
debates, he chooses to use a style similar to that of Conservative Talk Radio
pundents. It doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he's willing to change the
focus in order to make your point seem wrong or out of context, without making
his point any stronger. By doing that, it doesn't matter how weak his own point
is, because his misdirection has succeeded in focusing the audience attention on
watching you juggle.
-Bob
midrange.com
