- Status
WaterWater
Registered User
- Messages
- 488
When ClubMan is in good form he can be very helpful however have you ever seen Rainyday in good form?
WaterWater said:
Sorry if you feel that way but I certainly don't deliberately post to intimidate but rather, as many others here do, to challenge, clarify and inform. The "inevitable links" that I post are one means towards that end. I am fascinated that you, by implication, seem to think that my posts might be better if I did not post links to other germane information? How so? Anyway, as DrMoriarty says "aude sapere". As I have said before I am certainly not infallible but I would be curious to know specifically where people think that I was unnecessarily rude, offensive or intimidating to another poster? For what it's worth I think that I have had (directly and indirectly) as many, if not more, people compliment or thank me as have criticised me for my comments. You can't please all of the people all of the time and so on. Ultimately I like to think that if a poster receives as much positive as negative comment then s/he must be doing something right and such a mixed variety of views is an indicator of a vibrant and diverse discussion forum commiunity.
I think that's unfair. As RainyDay has already mentioned we (myself and himself) have certainly had our differences (as well as our agreements!) on different topics but, while I too might get annoyed with some of the persistent challenges that he sometimes presents (and vice versa), I have no doubt that these are not simply trolls but are genuine attempts to contribute to the relevant discussions.
Although, as far as I know, nobody has ever seen us in the same room at the same time I can assure you that were are definitely entirely different individuals.
I think that people who object to the tone/content of posts from people like myself and RainyDay should note that, by and large, we do stick to the letter and spirit of the law in the form of and, as such, are in no way abusing AAM.
is there not somewhere in the guidelines that says that personal attacks on posters will not be tolerated?
This pile of tripe of a thread just blows that rule out.
Not that I've much to say but now and then I chip in and to be honest both ClubMan and Rainyday at least give an opposing view to garbage that comes out of some peoples hands to mail including maybe my own hand
i welcome opposing views, it help me become a better learner from more informed people than myself and while I may differ sometimes on their opinions, at least they're brutally honest, sometimes curt, but you'd want patience of a saint having to listen to crap on this forum sometimes.
so get a grip people and stop nit picking yourself.
This pile of tripe of a thread just blows that rule out.
Not that I've much to say but now and then I chip in and to be honest both ClubMan and Rainyday at least give an opposing view to garbage that comes out of some peoples hands to mail including maybe my own hand
i welcome opposing views, it help me become a better learner from more informed people than myself and while I may differ sometimes on their opinions, at least they're brutally honest, sometimes curt, but you'd want patience of a saint having to listen to crap on this forum sometimes.
so get a grip people and stop nit picking yourself.
Rating:
Clubman: *****
Always informative, havent spotted the aggression mentioned.
Rainyday: ***
Didnt notice him too much until I got involved in a scrape over semantics re the morality of taxation - half enjoyed the thrust and parry of the debate (and dont be reading any dodgy overtones into that choice of words) !!
Clubman: *****
Always informative, havent spotted the aggression mentioned.
Rainyday: ***
Didnt notice him too much until I got involved in a scrape over semantics re the morality of taxation - half enjoyed the thrust and parry of the debate (and dont be reading any dodgy overtones into that choice of words) !!
I sometimes think that Rainyday is the darker side of Clubman. Trust your feelings luke...
Nothing like a reference link to prove someone wrong(its on the internet, it must be true). And as your general poster likes nothing less then to be proved wrong in an argument, the 2 lads stray into the unlikable zone now and again.
And as for others being scared away?
Ezra Pound: if a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Nothing like a reference link to prove someone wrong(its on the internet, it must be true). And as your general poster likes nothing less then to be proved wrong in an argument, the 2 lads stray into the unlikable zone now and again.
And as for others being scared away?
Ezra Pound: if a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
car said:
I personally am not so gullible as to believe everything that I read (on the internet or elsewhere). In the main (when dealing with core financial discussions/queries) I try to link to verifiable, factual information (e.g. such as on sites like OASIS, Revenue, DSFA, DETE etc.). I'm not sure if you have something specific (such as a specific discussion/thread) in mind when you refer to "stray[ing] into the unlikable zone"?
In a similar vein, as William James once said:
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
As the poster at whose defense ohpinchy originally sprung, I can only add...
I never mind anyone asking me to clarify what i am saying as I can be sometimes vague as anyone can. In general i have found that Clubman usually only gets people to clarify or backup their arguments and although these can sometimes lead the discussion off on a tangent ( as this did!) it seems to be done with the best of intentions.
Also i find both Rainyday and clubman very informative on a lot of issues but their style has definatley made me think twice about contributing to a lot of discussions (this of course may be a good thing!!!)
I never mind anyone asking me to clarify what i am saying as I can be sometimes vague as anyone can. In general i have found that Clubman usually only gets people to clarify or backup their arguments and although these can sometimes lead the discussion off on a tangent ( as this did!) it seems to be done with the best of intentions.
Also i find both Rainyday and clubman very informative on a lot of issues but their style has definatley made me think twice about contributing to a lot of discussions (this of course may be a good thing!!!)
MissRibena
Registered User
- Messages
- 350
Poor auld OhPinchy. He's not the worst either and I admire his direct confrontation of ClubMan even if I don't agree with him. That takes guts! When nobody was debating anything here for a while when we first transferred over from EzBoard, OhPinchy kept the ball in the air with the good old "fat chicks" thread
So lets just forget the whole thing. OhPinchy and ClubMan probably have more in common with their style of post than anything else - direct, no-nonsense and wriggle-proof debate.
Group hug guys
Rebecca
So lets just forget the whole thing. OhPinchy and ClubMan probably have more in common with their style of post than anything else - direct, no-nonsense and wriggle-proof debate.
Group hug guys
Rebecca
I have found that lately I have been put off responding to others post (Not that I am a massive contributor) because AAM has lost the whole community feel and has turned into Ask Clubman (7000+ posts).
I think portraying emotion through typing is a very difficult thing, hence the reason people use and so on. What one person may read as aggressive someone else may not.
My person feeling is Clubman can be very heavy handed when it comes to responding to people. I can already foresee this quote being pasted into a Clubman tread and me being asked to provide proof, but this is how I read a great deal of his responses. I may be in the minority on this one with OhPinchy but if more and more people start to feel like this it will be to the detriment of AAM. What use will it be if people are not willing to post messages.
I think portraying emotion through typing is a very difficult thing, hence the reason people use
and so on. What one person may read as aggressive someone else may not. My person feeling is Clubman can be very heavy handed when it comes to responding to people. I can already foresee this quote being pasted into a Clubman tread and me being asked to provide proof, but this is how I read a great deal of his responses. I may be in the minority on this one with OhPinchy but if more and more people start to feel like this it will be to the detriment of AAM. What use will it be if people are not willing to post messages.
Wiggles said:
The post count is simply because I was testing something out and never got around to applying it across the board yet.
Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as we skeptics like to say. But seriously, I would genuinely be interested in people pointing out specific and, if possible, habitual examples of what they consider heavy handedness on my part.
Clubman - I never intended this to turn into a popularity contest - I wanted to get you to consider a change of tone in your posts so that people would feel less likely to get shot down if they post something you disagree with. I think this would benefit the AAM community as a whole.
I agree with Brendan and others that the contributions made by you and Rainyday have a positive effect overall in that you often provide factual evidence to prove sweeping arguments wrong. But sometimes I feel that you concentrate on minute flaws in an argument which may well exist but do not really take from the substantive point being made, and this detracts from the overall debate - sometimes its better to let things go if they are slightly incorrect but inconsequential. Also, sometimes people may not have factual evidence to back up a point but are still right, but right on cue you seem to always come right out with what I believe to be a confrontational approach and dismiss these points. If we waited for government reports on everything we wouldnt get very far on anything.
For example, I happen to know of an area in the health service in which very poor work practices are leading to an entire group of people receiving ridiculous overtime payments. I can't give you facts on this because none exist but believe me it is still true. Blind faith in government reports is a dangerous thing because vested interests are often involved, and in this particular case the culture of silence would prevent the truth coming out. I feel that if I posted this in a normal thread it would be a matter of minutes before you came out and dismissed it due to lack of concrete evidence and so I wouldnt bother posting it. I also feel that you would ask me to quantify what I mean by 'ridiculous' and we would once again be on a tangent debating the minute details of a post rather than the notion contained therein, which would surely be a more interesting debate. When I am debating something with a person I debate the notion of their argument, not the minute details.
The reason for this is I believe that, fair enough this particular person may not be putting their point across in the best possible manner, and may have gotten a fact or two slightly incorrect, but by focusing on these flaws I beat the person and not the notion which they are arguing for. If a better debater took their place he might make a ************************* argument for the same notion - this is why I debate against 'what' the person is arguing for as opposed to 'how'. I think this makes for more rewarding debates (and I've no problem with people informing me of new things that show my point to be wrong) and this way its less likely to get bogged down in the nitty gritty specific details of the argument. I really don't have time to go trawling through your posts to dig out examples but they are there - I think the one in the MJ case where you take issue with my 'he was found not guilty of these charges but that does not mean he is an innocent man' point - the vast majority of people would get this without a blink of an eye but you chose to dissect it which I think was being unnecessarily picky and in no way added to the debate given that most people would not take issue with the point.
True you can't please all of the people all of the time and your contributions overall are very valuable, but I just feel that by toning it down a bit when countering others' arguments youd be moving closer to pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I agree with Brendan and others that the contributions made by you and Rainyday have a positive effect overall in that you often provide factual evidence to prove sweeping arguments wrong. But sometimes I feel that you concentrate on minute flaws in an argument which may well exist but do not really take from the substantive point being made, and this detracts from the overall debate - sometimes its better to let things go if they are slightly incorrect but inconsequential. Also, sometimes people may not have factual evidence to back up a point but are still right, but right on cue you seem to always come right out with what I believe to be a confrontational approach and dismiss these points. If we waited for government reports on everything we wouldnt get very far on anything.
For example, I happen to know of an area in the health service in which very poor work practices are leading to an entire group of people receiving ridiculous overtime payments. I can't give you facts on this because none exist but believe me it is still true. Blind faith in government reports is a dangerous thing because vested interests are often involved, and in this particular case the culture of silence would prevent the truth coming out. I feel that if I posted this in a normal thread it would be a matter of minutes before you came out and dismissed it due to lack of concrete evidence and so I wouldnt bother posting it. I also feel that you would ask me to quantify what I mean by 'ridiculous' and we would once again be on a tangent debating the minute details of a post rather than the notion contained therein, which would surely be a more interesting debate. When I am debating something with a person I debate the notion of their argument, not the minute details.
The reason for this is I believe that, fair enough this particular person may not be putting their point across in the best possible manner, and may have gotten a fact or two slightly incorrect, but by focusing on these flaws I beat the person and not the notion which they are arguing for. If a better debater took their place he might make a ************************* argument for the same notion - this is why I debate against 'what' the person is arguing for as opposed to 'how'. I think this makes for more rewarding debates (and I've no problem with people informing me of new things that show my point to be wrong) and this way its less likely to get bogged down in the nitty gritty specific details of the argument. I really don't have time to go trawling through your posts to dig out examples but they are there - I think the one in the MJ case where you take issue with my 'he was found not guilty of these charges but that does not mean he is an innocent man' point - the vast majority of people would get this without a blink of an eye but you chose to dissect it which I think was being unnecessarily picky and in no way added to the debate given that most people would not take issue with the point.
True you can't please all of the people all of the time and your contributions overall are very valuable, but I just feel that by toning it down a bit when countering others' arguments youd be moving closer to pleasing all of the people all of the time.
Munsterdude
Registered User
- Messages
- 169
Just looking up the recent topic...Minimum loan amount required to get tracker rate?ClubMan said:
- Status