5HC

António Pedro Marques · 05 Sep 2014, 13:15 · from 2014-September.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:15:49 +0100
Subject: (urth) 5HC
In-Reply-To: <54098E55.4010901 at bindweed.com>
References: <BLU175-W24FE529D5E6B0911C06059CFC50 at phx.gbl>
	<54098E55.4010901 at bindweed.com>
Message-ID: <5409B785.8090101 at gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote (05-09-2014 11:20):
>
> On 04/09/2014 15:46, Lee wrote:
>>> Richard Simon: I begin to weary of this...
>> There are various tactics and strategies to win a debate. One is
>> to wear down your opponent with stubbornness and win by attrition.
>> Last word wins?
>>
>
> Perhaps there should be a rule in debate that logical objections to a thesis
> become invalid when the proponent tires of having them pointed out

Logival objections take the form "That leads to contradiction" or "Allowing 
that allows anything (so in what way is *that* better than the 
alternatives)", not "I find that contrived".
More to the point, any proposition worth discussing offers material for a 
barrage of objections. It's part of the social contract not to abuse that 
potential, but not all seem to realise that unless they're on the receiving 
end. I blame the socialists.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net