New Forum Rules! (and letter to the members)

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vaako

New
quote:Originally posted by Vaako

David Lee,

You are grossly misrepresenting what my message says.

You did cut out the part preceding the Horton quote. It reads:

"3. This really needs no commenting."

This implies - clearly enough I would say - that this Horton quote "stands" on its own merits. Anything following it is not part of "3."

This is not honest quoting since the meaning is changed.

You also removed the bold typeface used in key Horton passages describing physical impossibilities.

Please note that this Horton quote is taken from someone else's reply to Horton. It included the boldface done by its' author. The reasons I used this - instead of original - are clarity due to highlighting and the fact Horton cannot change it after the fact.

I think it would be more polite to quote me correctly if you want to stick w/ the ad hominem knife.


Vaako
Click to expand...


Crap, I need to stop posting after midnight.

That last line should end w/ :)


Vaako
 
D

David Alford

New
Vaako, I just cut and pasted it, and that removed the bold typestyle. There is no conspiracy...

Horton's point on "clubhead disconnect" is an interesting question for which I haven't seen a definitive answer one way or the other. Therefore,
why criticize him personally for this? If your reply you aren't, that doesn't seem to be tone of your post.

Why do these debates always have to dissolve into personal attacks?
I agree some of Horton's arguments have been worthy of criticism, but it doesn't have to be personal, as that guarantees a downward spiral.

I'm really not defending Horton per se, btw.
 
V

Vaako

New
quote:Originally posted by David Alford

Vaako, I just cut and pasted it, and that removed the bold typestyle. There is no conspiracy...

Horton's point on "clubhead disconnect" is an interesting question for which I haven't seen a definitive answer one way or the other. Therefore,
why criticize him personally for this? If your reply you aren't, that doesn't seem to be tone of your post.

Why do these debates always have to dissolve into personal attacks?
I agree some of Horton's arguments have been worthy of criticism, but it doesn't have to be personal, as that guarantees a downward spiral.

I'm really not defending Horton per se, btw.
Click to expand...

Ok, here goes...

Firstly you need to separate two things 1) Hortons "scientologic" claims concerning physical world and 2) having a discussion w/ a second rate troll.

On the science department - it should be patently obvious, that there is no physical mechanism known/observed that would allow:

a) momentary disconnection between the clubhead and shaft through Impact.

- or -

b) The shaft and body disappears from the clubhead though Impact.

These a) and/or b) would imply existence of Star Trek "Beam me up, Scottie" - technology. Simply doesn't exist. Also, there is ample photographic evidence showing this. :)

When you talk about "clubhead disconnect" I have a handle on what you are refering to. But this issue doesn't need Hortons bogus science claims - those are just part of his mediocre trolling eforts.

You do see just how ridiculous his BSing is?

This is the reason why I replied to you. Bogus science doesn't need any Ad Hominem-ing in refutation.

Now we come to the second second point under consideration - the personal comments. These are just the rational way of communicating w/ people like Horton.

He is here with an agenda and personal attacks will continue to flow from him as a matter of fact. W/ him there is no downward spiral. This spiral thing is simply a positive feedback loop running its course. To de-fuse a situation like this you need people reacting to feedback. Change the feedback -> you change behavior. Or, be nice to Horton and he will change his way and be nice to you.

I think this is were you err. Horton doesn't react to feedback - he has an agenda (ok - it may be the lamest in internet trolling history, but it is there).

Feedback based systems thinking has been a big thing since 90's, especially in management, but there is one huge caveat emptor in this approach.

It doesn't work w/ people how do not respond to feedback, ie. trolls.

So, there's nothing to be gained by playing Mr. Nice Guy w/ trolls.

Besides - I wanted to see if I could make him jump. :)


Vaako
 
D

David Alford

New
The strongest debater here, is arguably Yoda. He does not see the need to resort to personal attacks. Ad hominem comments are the sign of a weak debater.

If you want to show strength, try courtesy to Horton or anyone else and see what happens. Maybe Horton is a troll, but even trolls can be disarmed. That will be persuasion power, exemplified.
 
V

Vaako

New
quote:Originally posted by David Alford

The strongest debater here, is arguably Yoda. He does not see the need to resort to personal attacks. Ad hominem comments are the sign of a weak debater.

If you want to show strength, try courtesy to Horton or anyone else and see what happens. Maybe Horton is a troll, but even trolls can be disarmed. That will be persuasion power, exemplified.
Click to expand...

I agree partly - Yoda is certainly one of the strongest debaters, no dubt. But you may be selling Brian short here. He is willing to stay in mudfests w/ likes of Horton. Differences of personality - I guess.

I respect both of them.

And I still think you are a bit unrealistic w/ regards to likes of Horton. W/ him you're - at best - just two posts away from personal insults. If people don't respond to feedback, there will be no persuasion power no matter who you are or what you say.

The difference between Mandrin and Horton was the fact that Mandrin was a known poster in SA forum. Any time he got too cute over here, he lost face in SA forum. This was the feedback he was answering.

Horton on the other hand is shielded from this kind of feedback - at least untill someone offers some measure of evidence pointing the finger. He is one of the Single Axis boys, that we know.

Btw - I still think Peter is Mandrin is Horton.

Alas, I do see your point. And I have been part of bringing the quality of discussion down in the forum - yes. But I don't see being a volunteer target for somebody's slander as "showing strenght".

So, I will do my best to ignore any postings from single axis
wonk(s) - w/ either of my handles.


Vaako
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top