Re: The Winning Debate

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/6/00 7:38:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, CMKSAGEHIL writes:

<< Didn't claim there was any.  The point is that Mr. Ivers frequently calls 
names, takes cheap pot shots, and makes emotive attacks--usually following 
posts of considerable substantive value that don't happen to fit his 
gimmick-of-the-moment.  This is really sad, as Mr. Ivers often DOES have 
things of substance to say, but they get lost in the non-substantive garbage. 
 It just gets old when the King of non-substantive invective accuses others 
of emoting just because he does not "get" the substance of what has been 
said.  As for Mike Sofen's comment about the gems that are lost--a great many 
simply don't post here, because they are tired of engaging in a pissing 
contest when trying to discuss matters of interest to endurance riders.  Too 
bad--it is those seeking knowledge who are the losers here.
 
 Heidi >>


All "those seeking knowledge" have to do is ask a question. If the answer is 
within my area of experttise, they generally hear from me in one way or 
another. Those seeking something else need only submit a post like yours, 
above. I'm just as happy to deal with personal attacks. 

Perhaps the greatest gimmick-of-the-moment ever invented for Ridecamp was 
your levitating horse of a few months back. I believe it is instructive to 
watch those of strong, but erroneous, opinion twist themselves into logical 
pretzels now and again. I believe, as well, that it is useful to blow 
fluff-headed nonsense completely out of the water when it appears in public 
discourse. That irritates a few, but often enough illustrates the value of 
actually thinking about things before offering up foolish utterings.

Finally, I think it is of value to demonstrate that defending oneself against 
personal attacks, like the one you have just posted, is not only possible in 
a forum like this, but relatively easy. All that's necessary is that you know 
what you're talking about. Get your facts straight.

These lessons may not be as tasty as the Great Debates of substance, but, in 
the end, they serve a purpose, too. You quickly come to know who has 
something valid to offer and who is simply a befuddled noisemaker. Then, when 
a Great Debate begins, all the ploys of illogic, semantic obfuscation, 
emotional sidetracking, personal attack, academic jargon--all these become 
transparent for what they are, and are easily dismissed. 

I think Ridecamp has come a long way in a short period of time. I believe 
I've contributed to that progress. The clarity and depth of thought I'm 
encountering, publicly and privately, from members of this group, is becoming 
quite rewarding. Well worth the price of having to deal with posts like 
yours. 

ti