Richard's domination of threads and wanting to have the last word

[Richard]

Nah, not a chance. I know with me, the way I see it is I'll say something, someone might disagree with me and that's fine, we've both put our opinions across and that's it. The fact I don't respond (because doing so will often just be repeating my original post) doesn't mean I've conceded anything.

And continually repeating yourself doesn't mean you've won an argument, not that CW should be about winning arguments.

Nuh-uh!

Nah, not a chance. I know with me, the way I see it is I'll say something, someone might disagree with me and that's fine, we've both put our opinions across and that's it. The fact I don't respond (because doing so will often just be repeating my original post) doesn't mean I've conceded anything.

And continually repeating yourself doesn't mean you've won an argument, not that CW should be about winning arguments.

Gelman-Smith coordination?

 

[Jamee999]

That's just BS tho, isn't it? Two points: a debate isn't a pissing contest where the one who keeps going the longest wins & your manner of "debate" (the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other poster said, usually presented as fact with evidence that doesn't support your contention) isn't conducive to the other fellow continuing.

"That's not arguement, that's just contradiction"
"No it isn't"

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

A new signature for Shaggy there I was would say.

As ye wish.

Though someone should tell me what ITFP stands for.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As ye wish.

Though someone should tell me what ITFP stands for.

In The First Place for mine.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

In The First Place for mine.

Thanks.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Naturally Richard thinks he's right, otherwise he wouldn't think what he does.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Naturally Richard thinks he's right, otherwise he wouldn't think what he does.

That actually makes sense, in a tautological sort of way. It's more the presenting of opinions as fact in an overly zealous way that I object to.

Two examples from today:

The 1990s was almost beyond dispute the highest calibre decade in cricket history.

I cannot believe anyone would honestly look at the attacks of the last 6 years and not notice how roundly awful they've mostly been.

Which are actually quite equivocal as he goes, but still illustrate my point.

 

[Perm]

Naturally Richard thinks he's right, otherwise he wouldn't think what he does.

Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't post what he thinks is right. What I find more tiresome is the persistance that he is always right, his presentation of opinion as fact, and his insistance upon having the last word and thinking that won him the debate.

 

[The Sean]

Have you seen the movie Rashomon? It shows how two people can have two different opinions and they can both be right. Perspectives of people can be different.

That's not how I saw it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

his presentation of opinion as fact.

Lots of people do that. I do it and lots of others do. For instance, wpdavid recently made a post in the Football thread along the lines of "McClaren is almost Taylor-esque in being out of his depth". There was no IMO there or anything, but no-one said anything abut that post and rightly so.

As to the other parts of your post, ironically those arguments are going to go round in circles.

 

[Fiery]

Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't post what he thinks is right. What I find more tiresome is the persistance that he is always right, his presentation of opinion as fact, and his insistance upon having the last word and thinking that won him the debate.

He's about 1/1000000th as annoying as you tbh

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with Brumby's post but cbf quoting his quotes within a quote. It's not the stating opinion as fact, more the phrases such as "I cannot believe anybody who watched such and such can think such and such" aren't so good.

 

[1-9-7-7]

He's about 1/1000000th as annoying as you tbh

Here we go again

 

[Richard]

That actually makes sense, in a tautological sort of way. It's more the presenting of opinions as fact in an overly zealous way that I object to.

Two examples from today:

Which are actually quite equivocal as he goes, but still illustrate my point.

Only way you're going to change that is a personality-transplant TBH. It's very annoying, frankly, that anyone would take the slightest of umbrage to that, in both cases I very deliberately was far less equivocal than I could have been, and made it very clear that it was a question to which there could be no definate answer.

 

[Perm]

Here we go again

Indeed. Best just to ignore that sort of behaviour. "Don't feed the troll", as they say.

 

[Richard]

A new signature for Shaggy there I was would say.

As ye wish.

Sig reported TBH - don't mind one quote along those lines but two which are basically insinuating exactly the same thing, well, pretty blatant IMO, and conveying a false impression of myself to the masses. Especially given that the 2nd one is very obviously a deliberately patronising response on my part to a patronising case - its use in a sig gives completely the wrong impression.

And the collaboration between you two is odd - very odd.

 

[Fiery]

Indeed. Best just to ignore that sort of behaviour. "Don't feed the troll", as they say.

There is an ignore function you know. I can't use it on you unfortunately

 

[Pratters]

That's not how I saw it.

How do you see it?

 

[Bobisback]

Cant believe this thread is still going.

 

[Anil]

Cant believe this thread is still going.

richard's tendency to dominate and wanting to have the last word has kept this going...