ClubMan v's OhPinchy - Your very own thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

To be perfectly frank I consider this to be quite patronisimg and presumptuous on your part but there you go...


You keep saying stuff like this fail to back it up. Look at how many times the word "sometimes" occurs in your post. It's largely generalisation and at best extrapolation from individual incidents in which I may well have been curt or flippant. But to tar most or all of my contributions with the same brush is simply unacceptable to me and certainly not something that I would let go without challenge - even if this reinforces your prejudice against me.

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.

Once again I think it is only fair to ask you to provide examples seeing that you are making such accusations...

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.

... for example, where have I ever exhibited a tendancy to place bling faith in "government reports"?

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 am not dismissing your points - I am merely asking you to support them with evidence which I think is not unreasonable on my part.


Much of the time the devil is in the detail. A purely deconstructionist approach does not always yield dividends but challenging arguments which may be initially premised on fallacious grounds, and therefore fallacious themselves, is fair game in my view.


Well, if an argument/discussion is worth doing then it's worth doing right. I don't see any need to gloss over significant errors or flaws.


I don't really understand this point.


I stand over my rebuttal of your MJ comment above. I can't see how you expect people (or at least me) to accept your criticisms, never mind act on your "advice", if you can't even be bothered to support them with examples or evidence.


I still maintain that I have nothing to tone down so don't expect me to change now.
 
I think your last post OhPinchy was excellently drafted and gets across your grevience - though I havent ever come across the problems you encounter and have found Clubman v. good, maybe theres a bit of a lesson in it for us all so, without any naming names or finger pointing:


"If the cap fits, then let us wear it"


p.s. I realise that no more than 1 person can wear "the cap" at any one time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Betsy Og said:
maybe theres a bit of a lesson in it for us all so, without any naming names or finger pointing:

The finger has already been pointed by OhPinchy and a few others specifically at me (and, to some extent, at RainyDay). I think it's only fair that I defend myself, rebut the accusations that I reject and put my counterview across.
 
Just for the craic I thought that I might facilitate my detractors by crafting that returns all posts by me that contain the word "evidence" on the basis that at least some of these might be challenges to peoples' arguments that I consider reasonable but that others might consider rude/abrupt/nitpicking/petty/intimidating/bullying/pedantic/anal/etc. Feel free to examine these for examples of the sort of "tone" that the likes of OhPinchy objects to. I am perfectly willing to craft additional search links that return other results if anybody needs assistance.
 
Erith said:
Clubman is a good sort. Just as useful and helpful as Rainyday but with a sense of humour.
Betsy Og said:
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) !!

Now I know how the teachers felt when ratemyteachers.com came out. Maybe we should start ratemyAAMposter.com?
 
Haaa haa haaa

It is great to see that an entire page is made up of posts from Clubman, Rainyday and a copy and paste of OhPinchy...

I did however notice one thing... the post on Sushi..here

Greated by OhPinchy and the first response was from ..... quess who... DA Clubman.. but was wasn't all to bad as clubman you did give Ohpinchy some good advice by that helpful link... and that was duly noted by Ohpinchy moments later.. so it seems that you guys have finally "kissed & Made up"..

On the subject of the suggestion above I think it would actually be a good idea to have another section with two options..

Ask Clubman & Ask Rainyday because ye do seem to have an opinion on EVERYTHING .. (not to be copied and pasted in any links going forward )


just in case anyone was confused by the tone of this post.......lol
 
Clubman said:

Fair enough - one example where a bit more circumspection on my part might have helped. Any more?

Clubman - that is a long thread. I restricted my limited time to reading just your replies to see where you had erred. ( Actually reading just your posts is sufficient as you quote every other thread in full anyway).

You started off with useful, helpful information.

You questioned the need to use brokers and I agree with everything you said. I read it quickly, but this is not an example of a thread where you needed more circumspection. Surely the advantages of mortgage brokers is a subject worthy of debate?

OhPinchy made a point that just because Michael Jackson was found not guilty did not mean he was innocent. I understand that and agree fully with OhPincy and the many other people who make this point about Michael Jackson and others accused of crimes. It does not imply that Ml Jackson was innocent or not innocent. You challenged OhPinchy to defend himself and I presume that he did. There is nothing wrong in you challenging this. And challenging this does not mean that OhPinchy is wrong.

I would hate to see you reducing your contributions or adjusting your style because some people don't like it. Most appreciate your contributions and even those who don't like being challenged by you to back up their statements must recognize your contribution.

Brendan
 
Persomally speaking I find clubmans comments to be arrogant, dismissive and overbearing maybe he should change his title fron administrator to dictator "uno duce uno voce " really sums him up in one sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I would not be so petty as to carry over a difference of opinion such as the one here to another thread. Even if I disagree with OhPinchy on the matter in hand here I imagine that neither would he or she.

Ask Clubman & Ask Rainyday because ye do seem to have an opinion on EVERYTHING

I'm not sure that's totally true but even if it is I see that as a pro rather than a con.

Brendan said:
You questioned the need to use brokers and I agree with everything you said. I read it quickly, but this is not an example of a thread where you needed more circumspection. Surely the advantages of mortgage brokers is a subject worthy of debate?

I imagine that the part to which MunsterDude was referring was in the second page of the thread where I mentioned that he "recommended" a mortgage (rate) that was not the best on offer and he took offence, disputing that he had "recommended" it but rather had just mentioned it. Perhaps I should have been more circumspect in relation to this specific part of the thread?


Don't worry. Whatever about other issues on my plate reducing my contributions I certainly don't intend to radically change my style on foot of the criticism and recommendations contained in this thread. I am sure that OhPinchy and others who criticise me do so genuinely (I'm feeling magnanimous this evening ) but I just don't agree with their points.

40coats said:
Persomally speaking I find clubmans comments to be arrogant, dismissive and overbearing maybe he should change his title fron administrator to dictator "uno duce uno voce " really sums him up in one sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any comments in particular or just my every utterance? Feel free to skip over my posts if they bother you so much. I won't take umbrage. As for the title, I'm not sure that it qualifies as a sentence given the lack of a subject and verb. But thanks for the suggestion. It's catchy.

By the way - how's the mineral water study going? Sorry I couldn't help - it's one of the rare issues on which I don't have any strong opinions.
 
Clubman - much as my original post may have seemed like a personal attack that was not the intent - I wanted to take issue with your posting style, which I still take issue with, and not you per se. I disagree with 40coats view that you are arrogant and the personal nature of his attack.

The opinion I hold is a genuine one and in no way is voiced just to cause controversy and like yourself I will leave what is said in this thread in this thread. I really do think that by some relatively minor adjustments in style you could come across as more welcoming while still retaining the ability to challenge those points which need to be challenged (i.e. not all) and I think that AAM as a whole would benefit as the loss of posters which I believe it may influence would cease thereby increasing the pool of knowledge available to us all. This was not meant to be patronising. You have clearly stated that you disagree and will not be changing style as is your right so theres little to be gained by this at this stage.
 
And with those closing remarks for the prosecution, I think it's time to close the thread, in case Clubman gets too big a head.

Thank you all for your insightful, impersonal evaluation of our friend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.