In this thread, Graham Wellington has put forth several theories. I have argued that his evidence is unpersuasive; he has argued that I have shown intellectual incuriosity and narrowmindedness. (I believe that is his argument, and I invite him to correct me if I am mistaken).
The several posts that followed this comment were negotiating a deal by which such a question would appear. This deal, to which he and I have both agreed, culminated in this post.
If folks are interested in reading some or all of the attached thread and giving their feedback, the question is this:
“Who do you think was arguing more fairly, logically, and persuasively in this thread: Left Hand of Dorkness, or Graham Wellington?”
I believe that Graham sees this post as most clearly demonstrating the force of his argument over mine.
As a side comment, I know this seems like a lame pitting; I am putting it in the Pit because it involves an issue I’m having with another Doper. Before you scold me for putting it here, I’d advise you to read the attached thread.
Before I even attempt to read that thread, someone reassure me that I don’t need to know who in the world Carlos Casteneda is. 'Cause I’ve been avoiding that sucker like the plague (the thread, not the unknown Carlos Casteneda).
Frankly, I give you the nod simply because pretty much every single post I’ve seen from Graham has been sophomoric, poorly thought out, mental diarrhea.
In the thread, you never claimed to be on a personal mission from God or got hidden messages from movies about the Doors, so I’d have to say, just on those grounds alone, your argument is more logical.
You do not need to know who Carlos Casteneda is to read the thread.
He’s a guy who wrote a series of book about meeting this old indian dude out in the desert, the indian being named Don Juan. And he had mystical experiences with the indian dude.
The books as written bear very little resemblance to the actual mythology of the indian tribe Carlos claims Don Juan represents. Or, uh, any mythology of any indian tribe.
You don’t need to know. I picked up one of his books for a friend and stopped reading after the first page. It is made to convince those who want to believe in New Age stuff, instead of people who reason. Just read the original thread if you like reading a long argument.
I have read the thread in question. It is quite hilarious.
Graham Wellington doesn’t have even the faintest idea of what logic or a good argument is.
Indeed, he seems to be an impervious-to-sense, willfully ignorant fellow, the likes of which we have not seen 'round these parts in quite a while.
So, in answer to the question: Left Hand of Dorkness clearly "was arguing more fairly, logically, and persuasively ", because Graham doesn’t know how to do any of those things. Because he’s a moron.
Having read that whole, painful thread, it’s obvious that your method it clearly more logical, Left Hand of Dorkness. It’s also quite obvious that GrahamWellington is mentally ill.
That being the case, I’m afraid this thread has a little bit of an air of gloating because your report card is better than the developmentally disabled kid in class. It will do nothing to change GrahamWellington’s mind about his “evidence”, and only encourages people to be unkind to a vulnerable person.
Easily Left Hand of Dorkness. Graham’s responses have not addressed points raised by LHOD; in contrast, LHOD has answered points raised by Graham. Graham shows no understanding of carrying the burden of proof, or what constitutes a prima facie showing of a particular point. Graham’s insistence that his point cannot be so much as described unless the listener is willing to read the book, rent the Doors movie, and who knows what else, is absurd. At the very least, he should be able to make an offer of proof: “If you follow the book, and watch the moviw, you will see X, Y, and Z. These, taken together, will prove A, B, and C.”
I hope Graham is okay with me making limited responses inthis thread, like this one: Lucretia, I’d like you to consider the secondary deal we made, on the last page of that thread. That secondary deal, and the goal behind it, comprises my major motivation behind starting this thread.
Lefty, you linked to a post by** This ** Years Model to illustrate Graham’s best argument. On purpose?
Graham, I think you will find I have done my fair share of arguing with Lefty. Furthermore, I have no doubt at your honesty in making this statement –
– but let me assure you that you are wrong. The better arguments win out, not the most popular posters. And speaking of arguments, you ain’t got one. Sincerely, nothing you posted in that thread constituted an argument, (and I did read the whole thing) unless you are relying on some kind of Monty Python definition.
tomndebb is a very fair moderator. If you stick around you will realize that. He would not punish you for disagreeing with him.
Uhhhh… you’re trying to convince someone who quite likely has paranoid delusions that he’s wrong by demonstrating how many people are lined up in opposition to his arguments? Seriously, I applaud you for jerking the thread in question into a new and different direction, but do you really think this will be effective? Or wise? Maybe it’s just me, but I’m…skeptical.
P.S. My post was a vote for Lefty if that was not clear. I only argue with him when he’s wrong. Hijack–Lefty
Thanks for the Pinker reference. You have given me a great deal to think about, I have pretty much come around to your way of thinking, with a few quibbles.–Hijack.
