I’m starting this thread in hopes that Scylla and Stoid will abandon thier pointless bickering in this thread in GD, so that the OP in that thread, another terrorist attack on the U.S, can be discussed profitably. Probably a pointless gesture, but here’s hoping.
If Scylla and Stoid are going to get into it in the Pit, this seems to be perfect timing for me to hole up in Nebraska for five days to work on my research.
Let me know when the sniping is over.
Actually, I have no problem with Stoid.
We’re having a heated debate, that seems to be coming to a close just fine by itself without the need of any dramatic pit threads by people wishing to make grand gestures.
I have no doubt that if in the next thread (maybe even this one,) we’re in agreement, she’ll support my stance.
And, I’m sure she expects I’ll do the same if the roles are reversed.
If we disagree we’ll have at it, again.
That’s what debate is about.
I’d like to think we’re long past grudges.
Well, that’s good.
The point was that the disagreement was wildly off-topic and tiresome and others were trying to discuss the original post.
Squeegee:
…And another thing. This isn’t a “who started it” argument anyway. It’s a semantics argument, or the classic “he said, she said,” acrimonious debate.
Gettyer facts straight chump, or it’s possible both Stoid and I will team up and beat on you.
Actually this is a falsehood. We were talking about the credibility of Government reports of threats, and tangentially the credibility of the chief of state which has direct bearing on the issue.
and what was the point in crossposting this to IMHO?
Okay, Scylla point taken. But it was a ‘he said, she said’ argument/disagreement, which wasn’t advancing the OP, and other posters (I thought) were trying to move on. I’m not the board police, but it seemed like a good time to say ‘take it somewhere else’. If you two didn’t, no harm done, if you did, the original thread could move on. No offense intended (and sorry for my last crack in the other thread).
I screwed up and posted this thread to the wrong board. I’ve already apologised and asked the mods to fix it. Sorry for the confusion.
No offense taken. It was a heated debate, and Stoid may feel differently than myself.
Look damnit, before I leave, I’d like to see a little more unreasonableness and hostility.
I’m feeling really disappointed.
Well, Stoid hasn’t checked in yet; only one combatant so far. 
Well, ya know, Stoid doesn’t do the pit.
Cranky, just for you, a link to enough unreasoning hostility to choke a badger.
OK, Scylla this is straight from the shoulder, no bullshit, zero sarcasm. All right? Take it for what its worth. You have an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate your opponents argument and then attack the exaggeration. Which ain’t much of a contest.
Stoid is a pretty sharp cookie, she deserves a fair forum. The fact that her opinions so often reflect my own in no way affects that judgement. Well, not much. A little, maybe.
Ever since I made that crack about whether or not Scylla was the one who sucked down Greek seamen, and you took it like a man, I wrote you down as I guy I could mix it up with, no hurt, no foul.
Now, I think you know, I’m as smart as you. I also have about twenty years on you, and, honey, I spent them busy. Ain’t no kinda fool. Stoid’s beef with you is no doubt a bit over the top but, companero there is a basis in fact. You don’t always fight fair.
You got brains and moxie, kid, you could be a contender. Your political opinions tend to the neanderthal, but we can work on that.
And if it seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, I can only say what I tell my son: “I’m a dad, I specialize in hypocrisy.”
Ok, then. You just labeled a significant persentage of the posters on this board as “Neanderthals” since we share many of his opinions.
As a proud Neanderthal, all I have to say is: Work on this.
elucidator:
excuse the point to point. I think it’s merited on occasion.
I can appreciate that. I’ll try to take what you say as such and respond in kind.
Yes. I don’t do this all the time. You can take my word for this or not, but when I do this it’s usually deliberately. It’s a tactic that I feel is merited and use when I feel that someone is being evasive. I personally prefer to deal up front (and that may be a personal failing,) and find success countering evasive tactics with direct confrontational ones. They serve to highlight the evasiveness. It’s a deliberate choice on my part, and usually and effective one.
Ok.
No. I don’t know that. I have a high opinion of my own intellect, and while it’s not unsurpassed, I don’t know enough about you to form a worthwhile opinion. Frankly, it is my opinion that your intellect is difficult to engage as you’ve rarely (that I’ve read,) stepped outside your own belief system in a debate and argued in the abstract.
So, I have no opinion as to your intellect, and that’s not always the deciding factor in a debate. Lots of smart people are wrong a majority of the time. I do think you argue honestly most of the time, and you’re willing to concede a point, and that gives me a positive opinion and adds weight to what you say, IMO (since you brought up the topic.)
Again. Shooting straight from the hip, that doesn’t mean much to me. I tend to try to debate the argument based on its merits, not on the age of the person making it. I’ve known people younger than me who are much smarter, and people much older who are idiots. I don’t make the mistake of the artisan who claims 20 years experience in his trade while in fact he only has 1 year 20 times.
I’d say this is true on both counts. I try very hard and take a point of pride in tailoring my arguments based on how the opposition is presenting theirs. I take my cues from the other side, and tend to respond in kind.
I take pride in that, and if you’ve watched me debate, I hope you’d concede it’s true.
[quote]
And if it seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, I can only say what I tell my son: “I’m a dad, I specialize in hypocrisy.”
[quote]
The only clean kettles are those not in use.
Ah, grasshopper, you forget. I live and breathe higher education and the frustrations it visits upon those who submit themselves to it. It’s no worse that what I’ve said a few times around registration time. And it’s practically pansy-assed compared to things I’ve heard graduate students say about their committees.
You’ll have to do better than that. Maybe a circumcision debate?
Wow, this was good -
I’ll have to use that sometime.
That’s all I’m gonna get. It’ll have to do.