Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I'm talking about the irrelevance or illogic or strawmanning or game-playing of their typical arguments.

---

Do you truly not see that this statement applies to you?If you don't like the responses you are getting, Faith, then improve your argumentation. From what I can tell, there isn't anybody here whom you haven't accused of those very things. Every time someone contradicts you, you accuse and demean and whine and complain.If you don't want to have a discussion with someone, then simply don't engage with them. To artificially remove people from the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to appear "reasonable." It means you won't be seen avoiding questions and counterarguments. When you claim that others are "irrelevant, illogical, strawmanning, or game-playing," you put yourself in the position of being judged and as I'm sure you are aware, you are rarely found in the right on those matter. So it is no wonder that you seek to run away from any responsibility for your actions.I can understand why the moderators might want to keep certain people out of certain discussions because they have shown themselves to be incapable of behaving with any sense of integrity or decency, but you are in no position to make that decision, Faith.And I mean that not only generally (posters don't get to deny those who would respond) but also personally (there isn't a single person here whom you would let respond to you). We have a system, the Great Debate, where if there is one person you want to talk to, you can do so there. And since we also have a Peanut Gallery process for those who aren't part of the Great Debate to comment, I fail to see how there is any benefit for the poster to say who does and who doesn't get to respond. It simply means two of every thread for those who meet the poster's "standards" and everybody else.

PaulK continues to lie about what's happening in the Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity thread (Message 513 and Message 516).You will note, at least, that I continue to actually engage him in discussion (Message 706) whereas he simply whines (Message 699).For an even better example, check out his post, Message 696, and see the response it generated, Message 698. Notice which one comes with the inclusion of references and complete quotes in full context.There is a simple solution and it's entirely in PaulK's hands:Engage or ignore.Nobody's forcing him to respond. Ooh! We can have a contest! PaulK can simply stop responding and we'll see how long it takes before I bring it up again! I admit to having some inside information, but I'll claim "Never." Place your bets!

nwr responds to me:

quote:

---

You suggest "ignore" as a "simple solution".

---

Like I said: Let's have a contest!PaulK simply stops responding to me. You do agree that that is simple, yes?Let's take bets on how long it takes for me to bring it up again. I admit that I have some inside information on what I'm going to do, but I am choosing "Never." If he stops responding, so will I.

quote:

---

That seems to contradict the offer of "ignore" as a "simple solution".

---

How?Are you saying that if he simply stops, I'll keep going? I'll admit that I do every now and then use bumps to try and remind people that they have run away from unanswered questions. I even did it to Faith regarding that very subject (which she still hasn't answered). But I get the feeling that if PaulK (and by extension, everyone else) were to simply consider me a lost cause and stop responding to that little bit about Faith's faith (after all, it's just him and me...not even Faith is involved in it and I can guarantee you that she'd be shocked to discover that I am defending her right to her beliefs), despite the fact that I'll consider him to have run away, I won't say anything about it. And if I do, I'll send him a bottle of wine from Temecula. Callaway Vineyard is really nice.So how is his ignoring me not a simple solution?Where's the contradiction?