Uh oh..

[spiny norman]

That, along with some ludicrous, pompous and high-falutin' idea that we're having a 'debate', when it's really just a bunch of old gits throwing cobblers back and forth on something that really matters for nothing in the great scheme of things, is what's taking all the fun out of this hobby these days.

So now you've resulted to obiligtory ad hominum attacks. Oh well.

You can see what he means about pompous suggestions of having a debate, can't you?

 

[spiny norman]

Where did you make your case?

Repeatedly on these forums where the use of this rhetorical terminology occurs. It's a known forum technique ostensibly to create a sense of superiority.

 

[spiny norman]

Wrong user ID mate. Tinky made all those comments not you.

We are Borg. We are not your mate.

 

[cheeseboy]

That, along with some ludicrous, pompous and high-falutin' idea that we're having a 'debate', when it's really just a bunch of old gits throwing cobblers back and forth on something that really matters for nothing in the great scheme of things, is what's taking all the fun out of this hobby these days.

So now you've resulted to obiligtory ad hominum attacks. Oh well.

You can see what he means about pompous suggestions of having a debate, can't you?

Nope. I'm sorry, Tinky is by far and large winning the in the pompus stakes on this thread

"Yes but the bit perfect brigade will cut you down."

"backed up with the Sword of Justice and Misunderstanding."

"again if you do that reading thing that seems to elude you"

"Please answer on one side of the paper only, avoiding all the usual pseudoscientific objectivist clichés."

 

[cheeseboy]

Some pretty strenuous defence of Andrew going on back there Tinky.

I get where Tinky's coming from: he's not actually defending the guy at all, but rather berating those who don't actually bother reading something properly before launching an attack based on what they think it's going to say because all these things say the same things.

I did read it. Heck, I even quoted from it. Just because somebody keeps saying I haven't read it doesn't make it true

But we should defend the right of anyone to give an opinion without being slated by those seemingly too lazy to make the effort to understand what's being said before launching their predictable attacks.

I agree, but as I've already pointed out in this thread, that works both ways.