|
Sheez Louise!<br>Been wanting to get into this one for a bit, but you guys keep getting ahead of me. Now Christmas is done, and my girlfriend is 80% moved and I finally had time to read both Iraq III, and this thread.<br><br>Here's what I see.<br><br>Iraq III started out as a pretty good thread with all people on "both sides" giving ideas, and evidence why they think that way. That's pretty cool, it's a lot better than (I think it was), the "Vote" thread that rapidly degenerated into confusion and bantering on 100% unsubstantiated ideas. Posts with unsubstantiated ideas are practically useless, and posts with just idle personal bantering are totally useless. IMHO threads with backed up opinions from both sides are worth our time to read. To spend time reading unsubstantiated ideas saps energy that could better be spent on something that matters. Such threads are just a distraction, something that keeps you from thinking about anything that matters.<br><br>As I was saying, the Iraq III thread went 7.5 pages with all parties giving reasons why they felt which way, this includes Mij and Mungo.<br><br>But on page 7, things fell apart. It began when Mungo posted:<br><br>[quote author=dallas alice link=board=general;num=1051920098;start=90#96 date=12/19/03 at 15:03:45]what makes me suspicious is when a guy like mij only ever posts stuff bout what a shit load of people the yanks are - makes you question his motives dont it ?<br><br>see dubya found yer buddy down a hole mij - where where you ?<br><br>mungo<br>[/quote]<br><br>Well, this wasn't the end of it because Mij went back after Mungo. But there is a difference between the way the two went after each other. IMHO, Mungo was defenceless so he accused Mij of loving Saddam, (multiple times, multiple ways). Totally rediculous, but there it is.<br><br>This topic is very important to Mij, and he saw his argument after this point being attacked without facts. The argument being very important to Mij caused him to do two things, one of which I totally agree with, the other I don't, but it's understandable. The two things were:<br>1. Now that Mungo had opened a hole in his argument, Mij wanted to pin him down. Mij challanged Mungo to substantiate his argument that 'Mij's opinions were derived from the fact that he was a Saddam lover'. Of course Mungo had no answer for this, so his posts completely changed character (they had merit in the first 7.5 pages). They became factless, unsubstantiated attacks on Mij, (go read 'em if you don't believe me).<br>2. The other thing Mij did (with which I think cost him, but it's understandable), is he went after Mungo personally. 50% of Mij's threads indeed were demands that Mungo back up his insults...but part of his threads were just returning insult for insult. The reason it's understandable is because this topic is very impotrant to Mij, he does not want people to be swayed "pro-Bush Iraq invasion" based on what he saw as Mungo's unsubstantiated personal attacks that he was a American hater/Saddam lover.<br><br>Mij is quite right, in order to continue the discussion in any meaningful way, Mungo needs to back up his "Mij loves Saddam" statements, OR admit he was out of line in making them...one ot the other, but not just "forget it". Until Mungo does one or the other, he has lost the argument.<br><br>So far, the above hasn't happened. Distraction has prevailed, the thread has been rendered useless after page 7. Although some of it has been fun, such ad the Zomby Woof song (very creative Mungo), is an example. The song, though clever, served two purposes...<br>1). It made everyone laugh and won friends for Mungo w/o answering Mij's challange.<br>2). It distracted further from the subject that Mungo still hasn't answered. This tactic leaves Mungo's assertation that Mij's arguments against the Iraq invasion are based on the fact that Mij is a Saddam lover. That (understandably), doesn't set well with Mij.<br><br><br>It's very important not to create or buy into distraction in a debate. Therefore, Mij's is correct to keep dragging Mungo back onto the track and have him back up his claim that Mij's arguments against invading Iraq stem from the fact that Mij loves Saddam. Either back it up, or admit that you got a little hot and said something thoughtless...otherwise, you don't have any credibility because you just say "whatever". Saying 'whatever' is not thinking that I would buy into.<br><br>And Mij...Go after what the person says, and not the person, you'll get further. Instead of giving fuel for further distraction, it causes everyone to see what you are doing, and the other person is not.<br><br>If one wonder's what I'm noticing in that thread, go back to halfway down page 7 in the Iraq thread, and look how things degenerated after that. Once you see it it's easy to spot in other threads. If one see's it, they won't fall for it and be led into trying to make sense out of distraction. <br><br>If someone says something in a thread, they should be willing to back it up...either right then, or on request.<br><br>IMHO<br>
_________________
"Winning the war on jihadist extremism is the Democratic Party's first priority this year and every year until the danger recedes" Open letter from the (Clintonite) Democratic Leadershp Council
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
