When "they" don't see things your way....

[Fifty]

Most of the time, when I make a well-thought out post (in my opinion) it never gets quoted or acknowledged in a thread, so arguements do not start.

 

[AVN]

Most of the time, when I make a well-thought out post (in my opinion) it never gets quoted or acknowledged in a thread, so arguements do not start.

Correct, you only get an argument if people disagree with you.
And acknowledging too often well-thought out posts (and there are quite a number of them) is IMHO borderlining on spam. Although occasionally I do it.

 

[Fifty]

Correct, you only get an argument if people disagree with you.
And acknowledging too often well-thought out posts (and there are quite a number of them) is IMHO borderlining on spam. Although occasionally I do it.

So you're saying that if I want to have a dialogue with someone here I'd have to say something stupid?

I suppose that as I gain some sort of reputation here my posts will be more widely read. As it stands I don't think anyone knows me or my posts or views, so they don't take the time to read what I write. This doesn't bother me I guess and it is understandable.

A lot of times what I say just isn't controversial enough I suppose. Maybe I should just start every post with "God exists, vote Bush"

 

[neviden]

"I know sky is blue when the sun is up and black at night".

Why post something everybody knows?
Why not post something that shows things in diferent prospective..

 

[nonconformist]

Well, I like tearing people's arguments apart (when theirs makes no sense of course) and always justify everything. And yes, I do get steamed.

And BasketCase voted he gets happy.

 

[BasketCase]

Most of the time, when I make a well-thought out post (in my opinion) it never gets quoted or acknowledged in a thread, so arguements do not start.

I see the same thing. I see very few "me too" posts, only posts that disagree with me.

However, that could be for one of two reasons: either those who agree with me see no need to reply, or everybody thinks I'm so far out there that they think I'm a complete looney and don't bother to respond.

The fact that I'm not sure should give everybody a pretty good idea of my mental state. (Or I could just be messing around with your heads.....)

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I usually "Go FLAMING HOWLING MAD" and type up a real nasty flame/troll, and just as I'm about to hit the "reply" button, I come up with a better response. Usually, my anger is directed at Perfection. (He's doing a good job, ain't he? ) Other people that piss me off are: anti-terraforming-pluto peole, pro-abortion people, and pro-israel people (any one of those characteristics can tick me off).

EDIT: Also, religious people and god-believers tick me off to no end.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The only time I would ever get angry would be if the other person was being rascist or homophobic or if they started referring to left-wingers in vulgar terms.

Usually if the other person disagrees I keep a level head because it is good to find out other opinions.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I blame bush, call the conflict in iraq a failure and eat pancakes.

 

[Akka]

Idiocy is one of the things that just make me MAD. When there is something that I see as obvious, and the guy just don't get it, it tends to warm me up to the steam step.

I often try to keep myself under control, but it doesn't always work. So I'm alternating between the two top options, but with a majority of the second one.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I simplify their arguments to the essentials , create walls made of their own ideology to trap them , and once they are trapped , WHAM !

PM me please. I'd love to know how to do that...

 

[Akka]

Easy : twist the words of the guy, forgot all the subtleties of his argument, and exagerate the idea to the point it becomes ridiculous.

Oversimplifying concepts and arguments doesn't require a lot of skills, only a lot of bad faith ^^

 

[sourboy]

My option wasn't in the poll:

If I know I'm right, I feel bad for them but I let it go.
If it's a question of opinion whereas no one can be proven right/wrong, I re-evaluate my stance according to their points that made me hesitate, and maybe re-evaluate my stance according to their overall argument against points that maybe I'm not confident on. Usually this means no change, but occasionally I am enlightened on a new perspective - which in itself doesn't mean a change in stance, but rather an adjustment.

Bottom line is I treat it scientifically by evaluating & re-evaluating my stance according to each new perspective I face so as to gain a better understanding and thus a better stance based on the big picture (ie - wisdom).

 

[Immortal]

Idiocy is one of the things that just make me MAD. When there is something that I see as obvious, and the guy just don't get it, it tends to warm me up to the steam step.

I often try to keep myself under control, but it doesn't always work. So I'm alternating between the two top options, but with a majority of the second one.

ahh Akka, your such a hot-head

 

[Akka]

Or you CFC people are really good at infuriating me

 

[cgannon64]

It never seems that the other side doesn't understand what I'm saying. Its more that they relapse into their rhetoric. I have a hunch my arguments have made their effect, but they will not admit it, so they slide back to the start.

In those cases, its usually pretty funny.

 

[Hitro]

ahh Akka, you're so hot

And I thought...

As for the question, why bother? I have better things to do and if I hadn't I could make them up.

 

[Immortal]

And I thought...

As for the question, why bother? I have better things to do and if I hadn't I could make them up.

I'm sorry Hitro, its that French accent...

Perhaps another invasion is in order?

 

[samildanach]

Can't believe I didn't think of this one till now!

When you're in an OT argument, and things start to get incendiary, and the Other Side shows no sign of having a brain, and simply refuses to see it "your way" (and we all know it's ALWAYS the other guy who's wrong!),

....what do you do?

It doesn't actually apply to me. If it is something I care about and want to debate it I won't make the key point in the initial posts. I'm not trying to win initially. I am trying to draw them out and will use trolls or flames to aid me on occassion.

I don't mind being on the recieving end of trolls and flames. I don't get upset by them but I am often disappointed that some posters don't have more depth.

For those posters who get upset because others failed to see the point of your argument. Don't shoot your bolt on the first post as you will find yourself in the position of rehashing your point and getting frustrated. This isn't the fault of your antagonist it is your fault. It is indicative of immaturity and more importantly for civ board - a complete lack of strategic thinking.

On the subject of winning and losing. I can't say that I win outright very often. I will make some good points and some bad ones. My antagonist will have done the same. Have I had categorical victories where I have won on every single point? Yes but not often. Have I had categorical defeats? Yes, one but I was argueing for religion (I'm an athiest) and FredLC jumped into the argument and bushwhacked me so it should really be a draw .

On the threads where I'm not interested enough to debate it. I'll give my opinion and leave. Or as sharpe does make some sort of smart ass remark and leave .

 

[Hitro]

I'm sorry Hitro, its that French accent...

Perhaps another invasion is in order?

Another invasion? Hmm... groucho