Quote:
There are many things presented on this board, that are less than an actual "truism." The opinion that Druid expressed was an honest one, even if you don't agree. However, because you don't agree and suggest he is misleading the board, then you owe us all, not just your friends, some solid reasoning beyond your effort to squabble semantics.
Oh, but look back. I do agree. Squabble or not.
Quote:
Caelia? I see your opinion. I also disagree with it for all the above reasons. Please don't flatter yourself by trying to petty me, and pretend that what you write...is somehow beyond my grasp. Perhaps, what Druid wrote was beyond your own? No?
You said it yourself, it's all about impressions. I'll be courteous enough to put it this way, then: I'm getting the impression that you, Steve, are telling me that I shouldn't be bashing Druid over semantics because I disagree with him. If this isn't it, then I wish you would clarify further what you're saying.

Because what I did, and what I must repeat I thought I did quite explicitly, again and again, was to come down on the specific style of argumentation built around making claims that the author knows to be false, in order to enhance their own argument. I pointed out that I do in fact believe that which he stated had been shown in studies to be true. I have no reason to doubt it. I'm not sure why you're now asking me to falsify it. Because whether the supposition itself is true or not isn't what I'm getting at - it's the "facts" used to back it up.

To examplify: I can tell you that the sun is a big red ball of fire, that makes it hot in the daytime. In fact, I've read an article by Albert Einstein on this very topic, and he agrees with me.

I've never read such an article. It's possible that he's written one - I don't know - but I've never seen it. It's likely that if someone asked him if he thought it was true, he'd answer yes.

But all this is beside the point. It doesn't matter that I agree with it - what matters to me is that I dislike being in debates where people fabricate proof to support their side. Even if I happen to be on that side.

So I have to ask, since you see my opinion, what about it do you disagree with? I don't pretend that what I write is beyond your grasp. I'm not trying to petty you or flatter myself, but unless you're saying that it's okay to make up facts to support a claim, I'm not sure what exactly it is you disagree with. Because that's what I'm trying to say.

Finally:
Quote:
Since when must he speak word for word the way you want him to?
I had a problem with something he wrote. I posted and I objected to it. You don't like the way I did that. Why is your complaint about my post different from my complaint of his post?

Withot trying to be rude, I have to admit I'm not very interested in continuing this discussion. I don't see anything coming out of it other than (more or less veiled) insults and bashing. It's possible that I've misunderstood you completely, Steve, and I believe you have missed my point. Either way, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it, now that the tone is already set (my fault or yours matters very little, but I'll take the blame for it if you want), and I was happy with this thread slowly drifting into the neverlands of the Pub.