So refute the post-nobody’s stopping you.
I will.
But until such time as the mere presence of a post below my user name is sufficient to quell all doubts, many casual readers will simply shrug and say to themselves, “They both have some good points.”
But when the proponent of the error steps forward to repudiate his mistake, then even the casual reader can regard the issue as solved.
And if you don’t like that – ignore it. Nobody’s stopping you.
At which point maybe you could consider following your own advice:
No.
But thank you for the invitation.
See, I have a solution I like. I am not asking anyone to change any rules, or concoct any schemes, to assist me in making my point. I’m fine.
Thanks for caring.
Yeah-I sort of thought that your “advice” was only for those on the other side of the debate.
Or even someone who polluted thread after thread after thread after thread with really stupid rhetorical questions as though they thought they were Socrates, rarely providing facts, information or debate, just idiotic attempts at “gotcha” questions, multiple times per thread.
That would be really disruptive too.
Yes it would. Have you tried reporting this person?
What do you suppose might happen if I did?
And all of a sudden, SDMB post volume drops by 75%.
Since this is neither the right forum, let alone the right thread, for this dance I’m just going to stop here.
Bricker’s a religious man. He can tell himself his factual correctness will be acknowledged when he gets to heaven.
As for you… what do you want, a medal?
Meh, that was pretty much covered when I said “flooded the board with off-topic commentary”.
No. My advice is for all. If you don’t like it, ignore it, or post in response to it. I follow that advice.
A medal, no. But all of us post on the board for various reasons. Sharing thoughts and ideas, seeking information, some sort of validation or acknowledgment, vindication even, among many others I would presume. If those ideas and reasons are unrequited - if that interaction doesn’t occur then posting becomes less interesting and more like blog posts.
If GD ignored well thought out OPs and topics of merit in lieu of debating the weight gain of Lindsay Lohan, the forum would be much less interesting and there would be less motivation for participation. Conversely, if factual correctness goes unacknowledged, it creates a similar disincentive to participate because what’s the point of going to the trouble of engaging in debate then? May as well shout on a soapbox for it would have the same effect. To the extent possible, correct ideas should be rewarded, and incorrect ideas should be punished.
As you say. Notice, too, that your aggressive and snarky offering of betting terms was totally unnecessary in eliciting this admission of wrongdoing; all you needed to do was to point out the error.
Well, feel free to set up the Doper Correctness Reward Fund if you like, giving grants and bursaries to those who express “correct” ideas (as well as funding local programs to put flaming bags of dog poop on the doorsteps of the incorrect). If I win $2 from Bricker, I will happily donate it to such a cause.
What’s the over-under for how many pages this thread runs to before being locked? 
Yes. And that’s always the first step.
But see – not everyone is Hentor.
I admit to not having read the whole of this thread. But I do have some thoughts.
Let Bricker (or anyone else) posit a wager if they like. I don’t see much harm in that. I won’t play though.
After the initial proposal let the dialogue on the bet take place via PM/email. If it must be done publicly, let it go to the pit. Keep the debate where the debate belongs and put the sideshow (with whatever merits it might have) somewhere else.
Well, I think it’s rather clear by now that, despite his statements about wanting a tool to enforce an admission of incorrectness in order to settle a debate conclusively, Bricker really only wants to put on a show, a little song and dance in order to exact a judgement about his opponent independently of the factual content of their position; indulging this is I think already harmful to the debate.