[Ravensfort] On second thought!! (Not about B&B selection)

[Charley Atchley]

Well I thought about it a minute and perhaps when I referred to some
members' postings as petty crap I was a bit harsh. I know that it is
probably not tactful of me to call "the spirited airing of a view point"
crap, because that might make the writer of the "spirited view point" feel
diminished.

I will say this about the whole debate process. When I teach high school
kids how to debate (3 trips to state in 3 years, so my advise works), I tell
them to stick as close to the subject as possible. Two of the serious
mistakes that a debater can make are called "The Fallacy of Personal attack"
and "The fallacy of irrelevant arguments." The quickest way to get hammered
in a debate is to be non-topical. The reason that the first fallacy will get
you beaten is because personal attack is usually used to hide the fact that
the debater has no damned clue what the hell kind of a point they are trying
to make, or their point is weak and ineffective, or they are not even trying
to make a point, they just want to piss off the other guy. Debaters that
think that they are being relevant sometimes commit the second fallacy, when
the arguments they are making are so esoteric that no one has a clue why the
arguments apply to the situation at hand. Non-topicality is where someone
wants to talk about farts when everyone else is talking about meteorological
airflow (wind).

If you want to talk about the Baron and Baroness selection, then great lets
do that. If you want to talk about getting slighted, then great lets do
that. If you want talk about what breed of asshole someone is, then great,
we can debate that also. (Athaulf's breed=Raw) However, don't mask the
second and third items by calling them the first one.

I will be willing to sit down and get drunk with whomever, and we can cuss,
discuss and cogitate about anything that comes to mind. Hell! I don't even
mind if you want to go stream of conciseness (Half my brothers do that when
they get plowed). But I think that kind of discussion should be left for the
campfire.

An example of what I am talking about:
(Drastically paraphrased)

KOFM: blah blah blah 
insiders 
 blah blah blah 
no cookie

DSD: I checked with my insiders about your cookie.
KOFM: flame on, flame on, flame on 
 I was robbed 

LT:  Unfair to call us insiders.
Finn: I didn't call you an insider, but now that we are on the subject

FFFLLLAAAMMME!

Repeat ad nauseous. Insert different names, but much more of the same.