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

[Richard]

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.

Evidence does support my contention, though, the person who I'm arguing with just sees it differently - or refuses to give sufficient credibility to said evidence (classic example being Tests - involving only Test-standard sides or involving all sides classed by I$C$C as Tests? It's a question that will always cause trouble). I'd not mention evidence that didn't support my claims, would I? Duuh.

So basically you do refuse to contenance that you're wrong &, conversely, refuse to contenance that anyone who holds a different opinion might be right? Ideal starting points for a reasonable debate, for mine.

Well obviously if I'm of a certain opinion and someone else is of a polar-opposite opinion then by default I believe I'm right and the other person is wrong (unless I change my opinion from my original opinion to the other's opinion, which would mean there'd be no issue ITFP).

I don't refuse to countenance that I'm ever wrong, as I just said. There are plenty of occasions where I've thought something's likely and been wrong; I just have the good sense to not predict all that often. If you don't voice your predictions, no-one can know you were wrong.

Sometimes I've changed my opinions of stuff that I've formed an opinion of after it happened too - no credit is EVER given to me for this. Again, it doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. You'd be surprised to hear that tec influenced me far more than anyone would ever have thought back in 2005.

Too often, though, people will say I'm wrong because I said "X isn't the case" and 3 years later X was the case. Yet unless I said "X will never be the case", that's not me being wrong, though obviously some would like it if it was, if they were of the opinion that X was never the case ITFP.

 

[Pratters]

Well obviously if I'm of a certain opinion and someone else is of a polar-opposite opinion then by default I believe I'm right and the other person is wrong (unless I change my opinion from my original opinion to the other's opinion, which would mean there'd be no issue ITFP).

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. Doesn't mean that the other person is wrong even if I believe some thing opposite.

 

[Fiery]

I wonder who's dominating this thread?

 

[Richard]

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. Doesn't mean that the other person is wrong even if I believe some thing opposite.

Nah, had never heard of it before now. Might have a look around, though - not normally a big movie person, but that sounds rather interesting.

 

[Richard]

I wonder who's dominating this thread?

...........

 

[NZTailender]

There's a difference between baiting Richard and having Richard voice his tired opinions on something you're trying to communicate to someone else.


I.E. Saying to Richard that Bangladesh is Test Class is baiting.

Replying to someone elses quote including stats against Bangladesh isn't.


Both will get the same treatment.

 

[Richard]

That's true. The sad fact of the matter is, the fact that Bangladesh aren't Test-class, and that the disagreement over whether Test stats are best including or not including them will always pop-up, in all sorts of cases.

I'm far from the sole perpetrator.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You'd be surprised to hear that tec influenced me far more than anyone would ever have thought back in 2005.

The entire forum have just wet themselves with excitement.

Too often, though, people will say I'm wrong because I said "X is the case" and 3 years later X wasn't the case. Yet unless I said "X will never be the case", that's not me being wrong, though obviously some would like it if it was, if they were of the opinion that X was never the case ITFP.

A new signature for Shaggy there I was would say.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

re: last few pages.

DAC? Seriously.

 

[Fiery]

DAC?

 

[Matteh]

Suprised there's not been this sort of thread about me insulting everyone's taste in music itbt.

 

[headhunter]

It can be arranged

 

[Dick Rockett]

Suprised there's not been this sort of thread about me insulting everyone's taste in music itbt.

You'd revel in the attention while denying that you've even noticed, let alone that you care. In contrast, Richard is much more of a performing seal, as this thread proves.

 

[pasag]

If you stop debating, for mine, you concede to some degree.

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.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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

Nuh-uh!

 

[pasag]

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.

 

[Dick Rockett]

 

[NZTailender]

Pasag reaching lofty heights.

 

[Perm]

If you stop debating, for mine, you concede to some degree.

Strongly disagree with this, as I know quite a few people just get tired with "I'm right"-"No I'm right" kind of stuff, and it usuallly crops up more with you, because you post more. Often people just stop replying because they've put their argument across and don't have much more to say about the subject at hand, it doesn't mean they have lost or anything. Sometimes they have, but quite often if a poster stops replying it means he is bored with the current argument to an extent, and has nothing more to add.

 

[nightprowler10]

Pasag reaching lofty heights.

I lol'd.