@farmerman,
Quote:The problem with this ssential belief is that many times a participant carries it into a thread that , by its stated purpose,should provide no opportunity to exude testosterone.
I don't see any possibility of avoiding the exuding of testosterone. Or oestrogen for that matter. Or culture. Or personal circumstances. Such things come with the territory. I would maintain that all three are evident in, say, the writings of Prof Dawkins. And of Charles Darwin. And I am glad of it because otherwise we would all sound like Daleks. Complaining about those things is as daft as complaining about the weather. You, farmerman, exude testosterone like a sponge being squeezed out by a washerwoman.
Quote:Thre are many topics that an author wishes to have a technical discussion about a topic.
Then the author is in the wrong place to discuss it if it is required that there are no interruptions or jests or whatever. This forum is in the entertainment business. Generally, the display of technical expertise is testosterone driven. Strutting the stuff. And you, farmerman, are in the front rank at that, if not Top Dog.
Quote:The usual run of threads is that , depending on the immediate interest, some person, with hormonal based opinions jumps in and adds nothing except vitriol and some whacky beliefs that, jut because theyve said it, it must be correct.
And you are a champ at that too. Your idea of "whacky" is nothing but that--your idea of whacky. Any argument built on your idea of whacky is, by definition, circular.
Quote:Then, if the person is criticized (usually politely at the outset), the poster will fly off the handle and, still dead wrong, start hurling epithet in place of evidence.
Which is your forte and goodstyle. And you also encourage others to do it who are on your side in an argument. The evolution threads provide hundreds of clear cut examples.
Quote:I know that in my discussion about "Overfishing"I drew in a couple of that kind and , whhile I actually love the insane give and take, I begin to wonder whether , for the good of the overall thread,I shouldnt just put the seriously mental offenders on ignore.
You have done. You have not only put people on Ignore, you have boasted of doing so and used the boast as if it was a clinching argument. Your argument about "Overfishing" deserved to be challenged. It ran counter to Darwinian science and to economic theory. Your use of "inane", just like your use of "whacky" gives you entirely away. You simply assume, and expect others to assume, that both designations are correct and it always turns out that the whackies and inanities are offering disagreement with your position. You then move to the position that once defined by you as whacky and inane they are beneath your contempt and require no response from you. Which leads to a strong suspicion that you designated them whacky and inane because you needed an excuse to not reply because you had no reply. You do it all the time fm. You're doing it here.
Quote:When a poster , obviously uninformed by several basic standards of measurement, will become belligerently and openly hostile to anyone who attempts to correct them.
Here you go again. "Obviously uninformed" Another assertion. "Several basic standards of measurement" are sure to be those that are congruent with your own position. Everytime. And hostility, once got started, can often not be traced to its beginning because it is too much trouble and thus the charge can easily be levelled by those who started it at those who counterpunched. That implies that the originator of the hostility had thought of others as a punchbag and is outraged that they are not.
Quote:Is it the poor medium which only allows a "first draft" method of communication? or are the readers of the belligerent posts interpreting the poster incorrectly.
It's the usual tale. Forceful disagreement is simply declared "belligerent". And "first draft" is chosen. Write and punch. I edit all my posts. It is obvious you don't. Having problems typing does not mean there are problems reading and correcting.
Quote:I know in the case of IONUS, he was as technically deficient as could be and I dont think anyone would deny it.
I will deny it. You're again using the expression " technically deficient" in the same circular manner as "whacky" and "inane" and in the hundreds of similar usages you have thrown at me over the years. Possibly thousands.
Quote:Yet he was quickly and openly hostile and was totally involved in homespun invective in a vain hope that he could use testosterone to carry his argument.
There again. It is just blithely assumed Io started the head butting. He may have done. I don't remember. But I'm not about to assume it on your say-so. He might easily have become frustrated at your style of argument. Which is to use words with a negative connotation about others as if they are true and which fit in with your argument.
Quote:All it did was to ahut off any continued interest in that thread, because I did the inexcusable by engaging IONUS with an equal amount of vitriol. (Rule one in debating the Phillistines is NOT to act like a Philistine)
In which case your interest couldn't have been all that strong in the first place. And your twee self-flagellation and your personal definition of "Philistine" is neither here nor there. (btw--a Philistine was a person from the coastal plain of Palestine in ancient times who was considered by others as uncultured. Io is obviously not one. Matthew Arnold said that the word was not used in English because we have so many philistines here. And Fowler suggests the lower case as in brussel-sprouts or french-windows.)
Quote:Until last year,We used to have a poster named real life who, although "uninformed" by any scientific standard, was really correct in preaching his worldview.
That is what we call "damning with faint praise". The compliment is intended to ease the pain as the stiletto (uninformed) is slipped into the rib cage.
Quote: AND, he did it in an unsettlingly polite manner.
One might wonder what unsettled you about rl's posts. Could it be that his "uninformed" worldview resulted in civilised behaviour and thus implying that an informed scientific worldview led to the opposite as when Prof Dawkins referred to some other academic as "below an earthworm".
Quote:I think that a good opponent poster is one who is visibly unflapped and remains totally polite , even in their rebuttals of anothers insults.
The punchbag returns.
Quote:In my mind, there are only 3 people on the entire board who are able to maintain disturbing politeness while being yelled at, and they are Msolga Joe Nation and Dave.
You are joking aren't you? What you need fm is a sheepdog to help you round up a claque. The three you referred to are not as docile as you seem to think.
Quote:There are actually very few trolls. Spendi and Oolongteasup come closest because they merely post something (often clever)that contains a simple appeal to the audience that says "Hey, notice me, IM HERE TOO".
Those kinds of trolls are harmless and easily absorbed into a discussion. On the occasions that one of them actually makes sense or is engaging the topic (no matter how often one claims that all his posts are on topic), he is actually answered as if all his posts were constructive and relevant. I find that (after 5 years) , that whenever spendi tries to derail a thread, the best thing to do is just go afield and let the thread come back on its own. If I were to hop in and comment or criticize, I would become the focus of , say, spendis comments for as many posts as I could last.
Pure, self-serving bullshit from first to last.
Quote:ASo, the art of polite unflapped rebuttal, and judicious application of"ignore" are learned skills in this board.
I'll never learn to use Ignore. It is a pure cop-out. It flags up insecurity. It allows people to pick and choose which arguments to answer and places the easy ones into dartboard mode. As Thomas does. And Setanta. And some others. It's pathetic. But it is certainly judicious.
)
