# *Concerns about AF, Part 1

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick [Rick] on November 17, 1999 at 15:28:53 {xx2d.1sWpQ7ajbiu2wnkFMFBt36Xyc}:

In Reply to: Concerns about AF, Part 1 posted by AP on November 17, 1999 at 08:26:06:

I'm getting a sense from your exhaustive treatise that you are building a case against AF that he is not engaging in fair and/or ethical debating tactics.

In college, political or other debates there are usually ground rules. There are also recognized uses of the English language that are recognized to manipulate or subvert the debate.

Although I have only scratched the surface (having read the first of several installments), it appears you are trying to call everyone's attention to AF's debating tactics.

Here is but one of many examples in your treatise that leaves the reader scratching his head and wondering, "is it true that AF has contradicted himself in this manner?"

> COMPARE:
>
> AF_1: Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder.
>
> AF_2: I've been told that Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder.

I can relate to your concerns expressed, because I have seem this sort of thing happen myself. As I've read the board over the years (following some threads but not all due to a lack of time) -- but having a memory like an elephant -- I have recognized these subtleties! It does bother me as it has evidently bothered you!

Just so everyone reading this knows that I'm not trying to take sides with anyone. Rather, I noticed that not one person commented on this or other curious points you raised, convincing me that the majority of respondents to your post didn't bother to read it. Even though I may not agree with you completely, I'm against the mob mentality here that seems to say, "no matter what Greg says, shoot him down."

I'd sincerely like to see your points addressed. Although I would suggest you try to distill your thoughts to very clear and concise points, I realize this is easier said than done. Verbose posts are easy to churn out, whereas it takes time (and time most don't possess) to go back and edit out excess verbiage.

I think what's happening is people are overwhelmed with the volume of material, and perhaps miss these points. They fail to recognize that those who read your posts carefully, and see points such as I pointed out above, are turned-off to those who ridicule you. Posts that "hand wave" believing they are steering others away from your posts, forget that some actually read long verbose postings! As a result, the failure in this topic to address any of your points has simply discredited those individuals thus far. Whether you're right or wrong, I think their underestimating the many points in what at first glance looks like a sea of words, any prevented any of your points from getting addressed. This leaves you ahead of AF in the debate whether or not the substance of your post is correct. (I say this, only because I reserve my opinion until I have read all installments of your multi-part series.)

If your strategy is indeed to overwhelm the opposition with volumes of words (so that only those who sincerely want to understand what you're saying get these curious points you raise about AF's contradictions such as I illustrated, that many missed in the sea of words), then you've handled the strategy masterfully. You've bought time for those who sincerely want to know what issues you're raising to think carefully about what you're saying, while your opponents are too busy focusing on your verbosity. I'm sure it appears to some they're doing this because they are unable to address the issues you raise. Whether this is true remains to be seen.

I appreciate the effort you've put into defending your integrity on this site.

Rick

Follow Ups:

- **Concerns about AF, Part 1 Farkel 21:49:27 11/17/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Concerns about AF, Part 1

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]