Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - To the Folks Who Post that They Don't Post Here, Anymore.....

host · 03-10-2007, 11:36 PM

uber, I have to disagree with your description of the "dynamic" here, because, if results from these recent, and a year ago poll that I authored, are any persuasion, (I admit that it is a small sample vote, in each case, but it is data that is an authentic "pulse" from this forum), there is no atmosphere of "ganging up". There was consistent, although sometimes narrowly so, disagreement with the crux of my OP opinion, gleaned from these poll results:

Poll results: 5 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 8 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978

Poll results: 20 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 5 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109821

Poll results: 8 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 29 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112677

Poll results: 9 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 3 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112281

Poll results: 18 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 17 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1541

....and the more recent poll results, above, aren't much different from exactly a year ago:

Poll results: 13 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 10 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1482

I see nothing in these poll results that would dissuade anyone from participating....posting an opinion. To the contrary, I would expect that these poll results would encourage participation. The poll results are frequently in disagreement with my POV....more incentive for me to "try harder".

I post quite a bit on this forum, uber....it should not have been difficult for you to find and post an example to support your criticism of me, especially because of the credibility that you have established for yourself with the management and the members here at tfp. I'm disappointed that you did not offer me the opportunity of "specifics", similarly to the examples I afforded in my criticism of ace and of ustwo in the OP.

I am at a disadvantage to defend against your criticism, or to admit that I misled or misinformed other readers, (an apologize to them, if appropriate) in my previous posts. I do post quite a bit, and it isn't an excuse, if I am indeed guilty of doing the things that you claim that I have done, the offenses that you mention, they are at most, a tiny percentage of my posting content.

and....dc_dux, I think that you've hit the nail on the head. All points of fact do not have equal standing/validity. IMO, this forum won't "work", as a "politics" forum, if we can not "stipulate" that certain foundational assumptions, are "points of fact", for purposes of discussion. For a long time, here, and it even cropped up again, long after most thought we could stipulate to it, was the issue of whether Saddam had WMD and WMD making capability, to any degree that resembled what US authorities described as justification for invading Iraq.

If no discussion of any substance can take place on a political issue or controversy, until most of us are willing to stipulate to a key "point of fact", the discussion won't progress past that point. How could it, and be worth participating in? The more recent impasse, has to do with whether or not Scooter Libby did anything illegal, and whether there was a basis for a CIA requested, criminal investigation, concerning the leaking of the name and the CIA employment of Valerie Plame to the media.

A curious thing about these delayed stipulations, is that the folks who rely on multiple, news reports from professional press correspondents, for their information, and who end up being correct (examples...no WMD found in Iraq, and Scooter Libby convicted on four felony charges) enjoy no advantage that I can recognize, when it comes to persuading any other participants here who harbor an opposite POV, shaped from sources that they won't, can't, or refuse to share....or when they do share a source, they can not defend it against criticism of it's integrity and conflicts of interest.

All ideas and opinions are beholden to the information sources that establish and influence them. They are not all in synch with the most likely explanation for why a given "point of fact", is or isn't, so. Sometimes, a false or misleading conclusion can be agreed upon by all, as a point of fact, yet this still does not always make it, so.

A challenge to an opinion that anyone posts, is not an attack on that poster, it is a challenge to defend and support that opinion, or ideally, if that defense is not possible, to concede that other interpretations of the issue, enjoy a greater weight of evidence in their favor, than yours does. When that happens, if only temporarily, until we know more....or do more research, we can agree to disagree.

....but as dc_dux posted, it did not advance the discussion here, to continue to claim that democrats in congress who "voted for the war", had access to all of the intelligence information that the president had access to, before they voted to support responding militarily to his claims that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

My "style" of posting is to support/foster agreement of as many "points of fact" as I anticipate that it will take to have an "in depth", political discussion.
I try to persuade that my POV is well founded. I don't see others having more success, and most of the time, not even as much, supporting what they have to say, using other means and methods than I'm using.

If I do, and I'm always looking, I'll latch on to those methods, and I'll come by my future posts here, much easier, and more quickly, than I can, now!

03-10-2007, 11:36 PM	#36 (permalink)
host Banned	uber, I have to disagree with your description of the "dynamic" here, because, if results from these recent, and a year ago poll that I authored, are any persuasion, (I admit that it is a small sample vote, in each case, but it is data that is an authentic "pulse" from this forum), there is no atmosphere of "ganging up". There was consistent, although sometimes narrowly so, disagreement with the crux of my OP opinion, gleaned from these poll results: Poll results: 5 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 8 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978 Poll results: 20 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 5 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109821 Poll results: 8 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 29 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112677 Poll results: 9 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 3 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112281 Poll results: 18 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 17 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1541 ....and the more recent poll results, above, aren't much different from exactly a year ago: Poll results: 13 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 10 votes for the thread OP POV http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1482 I see nothing in these poll results that would dissuade anyone from participating....posting an opinion. To the contrary, I would expect that these poll results would encourage participation. The poll results are frequently in disagreement with my POV....more incentive for me to "try harder". I post quite a bit on this forum, uber....it should not have been difficult for you to find and post an example to support your criticism of me, especially because of the credibility that you have established for yourself with the management and the members here at tfp. I'm disappointed that you did not offer me the opportunity of "specifics", similarly to the examples I afforded in my criticism of ace and of ustwo in the OP. I am at a disadvantage to defend against your criticism, or to admit that I misled or misinformed other readers, (an apologize to them, if appropriate) in my previous posts. I do post quite a bit, and it isn't an excuse, if I am indeed guilty of doing the things that you claim that I have done, the offenses that you mention, they are at most, a tiny percentage of my posting content. and....dc_dux, I think that you've hit the nail on the head. All points of fact do not have equal standing/validity. IMO, this forum won't "work", as a "politics" forum, if we can not "stipulate" that certain foundational assumptions, are "points of fact", for purposes of discussion. For a long time, here, and it even cropped up again, long after most thought we could stipulate to it, was the issue of whether Saddam had WMD and WMD making capability, to any degree that resembled what US authorities described as justification for invading Iraq. If no discussion of any substance can take place on a political issue or controversy, until most of us are willing to stipulate to a key "point of fact", the discussion won't progress past that point. How could it, and be worth participating in? The more recent impasse, has to do with whether or not Scooter Libby did anything illegal, and whether there was a basis for a CIA requested, criminal investigation, concerning the leaking of the name and the CIA employment of Valerie Plame to the media. A curious thing about these delayed stipulations, is that the folks who rely on multiple, news reports from professional press correspondents, for their information, and who end up being correct (examples...no WMD found in Iraq, and Scooter Libby convicted on four felony charges) enjoy no advantage that I can recognize, when it comes to persuading any other participants here who harbor an opposite POV, shaped from sources that they won't, can't, or refuse to share....or when they do share a source, they can not defend it against criticism of it's integrity and conflicts of interest. All ideas and opinions are beholden to the information sources that establish and influence them. They are not all in synch with the most likely explanation for why a given "point of fact", is or isn't, so. Sometimes, a false or misleading conclusion can be agreed upon by all, as a point of fact, yet this still does not always make it, so. A challenge to an opinion that anyone posts, is not an attack on that poster, it is a challenge to defend and support that opinion, or ideally, if that defense is not possible, to concede that other interpretations of the issue, enjoy a greater weight of evidence in their favor, than yours does. When that happens, if only temporarily, until we know more....or do more research, we can agree to disagree. ....but as dc_dux posted, it did not advance the discussion here, to continue to claim that democrats in congress who "voted for the war", had access to all of the intelligence information that the president had access to, before they voted to support responding militarily to his claims that Iraq was an "imminent threat". My "style" of posting is to support/foster agreement of as many "points of fact" as I anticipate that it will take to have an "in depth", political discussion. I try to persuade that my POV is well founded. I don't see others having more success, and most of the time, not even as much, supporting what they have to say, using other means and methods than I'm using. If I do, and I'm always looking, I'll latch on to those methods, and I'll come by my future posts here, much easier, and more quickly, than I can, now!