No Contest.

[Brian Manzella]

Damn.

A written debate is what we have been having.

It has gone something like this:

Harold the Carpenter has been in the construction biz for 30 years. Worked for many a contractor, and is now on his on. He has built a building that has won many awards nationally for it's construction and design. He won best builder in his state and has several videos on the best techniques for do-it-yourselfers. Not the most well known guy around, but he writes for a small magazine with an avid readership.

Pete has hired contractors before, and they have built his home, and renovated his small office building. He is interested in the construction field, and does a little work around his house, once putting in an extra bedroom.


Harold says I think that most contractors do a poor job communicating with their clients, and often do work that does more harm than good in renovations.

Pete says he has never had a bad experience.

Harold says he went out on his own because he saw many a contractor that he worked for, basically screwing the clients with shoddy workmanship, and inferior design.

Pete says that Harold is at least mostly wrong, and must think that his company is the only one that knows what they are doing.

Harold says he never said that, and that he totally disagrees with Pete and can cite a hundred examples off the top of his head to support his contention.

Pete says he is wrong and that Harold is attacking him.


Got it?


Listen pal, either debate me live, question me live, interview me live, or disappear.

Really.

 

[spktho]

First post on this thread that I think EVERYONE would agree with.

Self included.

Sorry but, I was actually speaking of your argument.

I see that you perceive Brian's argument in that light.

 

[birly-shirly]

A written debate is what we have been having.

[...]
Pete says that Harold is at least mostly wrong, and must think that his company is the only one that knows what they are doing.

Harold says he never said that, and that he totally disagrees with Pete and can cite a hundred examples off the top of his head to support his contention.

Pete says he is wrong and that Harold is attacking him.


Got it?


Listen pal, either debate me live, question me live, interview me live, or disappear.

Really.

Nice analogy, but if I'm supposed to be Pete, then you must have missed the bit where I said

Let's take Leadbetter for example. I'm not claiming his stuff is the best. I wouldn't argue that it's perfect. But it has got form at the highest level. So, and this isn't aimed at you Brian unless you really want to put yourself in the line of fire, I do think that it's BLIND IGNORANCE to have forum posters going on about "Lead Poisoning" and the like. Now, if someone's had a bad experience with poor one-to-one teaching of the model, that's something else entirely. But dismissing the whole model as junk just seems one-eyed to me.

Or the bit where I said

I'd be genuinely surprised if you held quite such a black and white view of the rest of the teaching world

I gave you my reasons for a written format. Misunderstandings like the one above is one of them. If you want to set any boundaries or ground rules, then I'm happy to comply.

Your call.

 

[birly-shirly]

Sorry but, I was actually speaking of your argument.

I see that you perceive Brian's argument in that light.

Spktho - I know what you thought you were saying. And you're right about me!

 

[Brian Manzella]

So....

Are we going live?

Or is this thread going to the freezer?

 

[birly-shirly]

I told you already.

If you don't like the idea of a Q&A in which neither of us can go misrepresenting the other's views without a fixed written record of what was actually said...

...then go ahead, and close the door.

I'll leave you to the company of Caedus - who agrees with everything you say.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I told you already.

If you don't like the idea of a Q&A in which neither of us can go misrepresenting the other's views without a fixed written record of what was actually said...

...then go ahead, and close the door.

I'll leave you to the company of Caedus - who agrees with everything you say.

The RECORD is important.

USTREAM live will record it all.

You can just be a voice, no video if you wish.

Otherwise, no go.

YOU manipulated this thread. It won't happen if we talk.

 

[Brian Manzella]

The RECORD is important.

USTREAM live will record it all.

You can just be a voice, no video if you wish.

Otherwise, no go.

YOU manipulated this thread. It won't happen if we talk.

Other Forum members,

Am I off base here?

 

[birly-shirly]

Manipulated? If by that you mean that I've gone back repeatedly to quote my earliest posts to demonstrate (a) what I've actually said; and (b) that I've been consistent throughout, then I suppose so.

Anyway, the Q&A I'd want to conduct shouldn't have room even for any of that. If I'm going to spend any more time on it, I'd want it to be productive. A fair interview that lets you represent your views. If, at any point in the interview, I'm seen as having pushed my own agenda into the foreground instead of letting you speak your mind then I'll have failed.

All I will want is to see that you're being clear, consistent and coherent in what you're saying. If you want someone to moderate so that I stay fairly within my brief, that's cool.

 

[Shot Limit]

Ustream is awsome, a great medium for debate. There are apparent communication issues in this thread IMO.

 

[slash]

Manipulated? If by that you mean that I've gone back repeatedly to quote my earliest posts to demonstrate (a) what I've actually said; and (b) that I've been consistent throughout, then I suppose so.

Anyway, the Q&A I'd want to conduct shouldn't have room even for any of that. If I'm going to spend any more time on it, I'd want it to be productive. A fair interview that lets you represent your views. If, at any point in the interview, I'm seen as having pushed my own agenda into the foreground instead of letting you speak your mind then I'll have failed.

All I will want is to see that you're being clear, consistent and coherent in what you're saying. If you want someone to moderate so that I stay fairly within my brief, that's cool.

Birly

If after 14 pages and how many days ,you can't back up your stuff ..wow!! Looks like Steve was fairly correct. Stop hiding. We don't need a bunch of rules . Debate. You wanted to be heard. Now's your chance.

 

[Festus]

Other Forum members,

Am I off base here?

I've been following this thread from Day 1 and I'm still not 100% sure what it's about.

If Birly says his personal experience with golf instructors has been mostly positive and that's it, then one cannot argue against that point since it is unique to the individual.

But if Birly says that based solely on this or related experience he is prepared to argue that all (or most) instructors must then be good BUT Brian says that in his experience in the industry that most of his peers are buffoons, then I'd say that's a premise for a debate.

Looking back at Brian's first post in this thread, his position is clear.

 

[birly-shirly]

Slash - The "rules" I offered were for Brian's comfort. He thinks I've been, amongst other things, "manipulative". I'm trying to take that concern out of play. If he doesn't want it, or wants to propose something else, I've said I'm open to suggestions.

If you still think this is a debate, then you haven't read or you haven't understood.

 

[TheWoat]

I've been following this thread from Day 1 and I'm still not 100% sure what it's about.

If Birly says his personal experience with golf instructors has been mostly positive and that's it, then one cannot argue against that point since it is unique to the individual.

But if Birly says that based solely on this or related experience he is prepared to argue that all (or most) instructors must then be good BUT Brian says that in his experience in the industry that most of his peers are buffoons, then I'd say that's a premise for a debate.

Looking back at Brian's first post in this thread, his position is clear.

+1
Also there is some disagreement on the subject of method/method teachers.

I dont have much experience with teaching pros, but from what Ive heard from people I know, most experiences, if not all, have been negative. (and their slice is still there).

 

[slash]

Slash - The "rules" I offered were for Brian's comfort. He thinks I've been, amongst other things, "manipulative". I'm trying to take that concern out of play. If he doesn't want it, or wants to propose something else, I've said I'm open to suggestions.

If you still think this is a debate, then you haven't read or you haven't understood.

Birly

Brians words.... " Listen pal, either debate me live, question me live, interview me live, or disappear."

I do understand. I did not say you have been debating. You have been asked/challenged to put up or shut up . I do not believe Brian is looking for any special conditions for as you say "his comfort".

 

[savydan]

Go live. The written word has run its course - there's nothing more for the audience to learn.

Just have a conversation. What's birly got to lose?

 

[dbl]

I'm not sure of the point of a debate, it's like a flea getting a debate with an elephant, but it would have to be live since this 14 page exercise shows the written word won't work. If Birly thinks he might need to lookup something or reflect offline, give him a day or two for a part2 followup.

But it just seems like a debate on whether the earth is round or flat. "I can walk for days and never find a curve to the earth" says one. The other says I can go into space and see the earth as a 3d spheroid.

 

[ggsjpc]

I've been following this thread from Day 1 and I'm still not 100% sure what it's about.

If Birly says his personal experience with golf instructors has been mostly positive and that's it, then one cannot argue against that point since it is unique to the individual.

But if Birly says that based solely on this or related experience he is prepared to argue that all (or most) instructors must then be good BUT Brian says that in his experience in the industry that most of his peers are buffoons, then I'd say that's a premise for a debate.

Looking back at Brian's first post in this thread, his position is clear.

This is the post that everyone should be reading.

The answer to this post determines how things should move forward.

15 pages to get here.

Wow!

 

[footwedge]

Other Forum members,

Am I off base here?

Why not have a written debate with just the two of you, no forum members putting in their two cents. Then neither of you can manipulate the thread.

Come on Brian you want to debate Birly, who care's about the arena. Just you and Birly no interference from other's. Set up a few subjects to debate and go at it, you can each choose a couple of subjects and state your views.

 

[birly-shirly]

ggsjpc and festus are (imop) bang on point.

As for the 15 pages it's taken - all I can say is that I thought anyone could have drawn the same conclusion back on page 7. As I said once already, I don't believe the real debate has moved forward at all since then. Nor could it have. I think I've made reasonable efforts to close things down since then - subject to responding to points put directly to (or at) me.