Quote:
Originally posted by joeclarke
You could be describing JP as much as PB. Aw, but JP does know what he's talking about. Right, I forgot that part.
PB is definitely polemic - no doubt, no doubt.
But then you can't be polemic without taking exception to the "common knowledge" of the group, now can you? You see an inflammatory "troll" (what a ridiculous concept in an OT forum - we should all agree and play nice and not raise or debate difficult subjects - what's the point?) - In this thread I see someone laying out some interesting points, which are being engaged by others.
|
I agree; we all come here to some degree to engage one another in interesting debate; even difficult and oft times very emotional debate. This is truly pretty much a free-for-all; the thin-skinned and easily offended need not apply.
That said, there are some that engage in almost purely personal attack. When they go after the message, it's all too tempting for them to shoot the messenger. While I could care less if folks play nice or not when they are here, the constant underlying theme of personal attack from some of them gets old. It does nothing to further the argument. It has nothing to do with being polemic; one can certainly be polemic and civil at the same time. The good points you mention (and PB certainly has some) tend to get lost in the vitriolic nature of the attack.
It's one thing to get a bit strident in making a point or arguing a position; it's quite another to either infer, or state outright, that your antagonist has adopted their position through ignorance and ignorance alone. There are not many ignorant people on this BBS. To constantly tout one's own intellect while attacking that of others is simply a no-sale. It makes him come of as a cross between Vinzinni and 'enry 'iggins.