Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarky Oracle!" data-source="post: 441934" data-attributes="member: 57984">Folks can, and should, have varying opinions on just about anything. It&#039;s healthy and makes for good discussion, those differing viewpoints -- even if you don&#039;t entirely agree with them -- still valuable because they can bring up interesting specifics and details that one might never have really thought about previously... But sometimes you get into a strange arena where intelligent people -- particularly intelligent people -- decide to take a position and espouse a perspective that they realize is defenseless and even ridiculous, elaborating on it elaborately and rationalizing endlessly as if they&#039;re matriculating Logic in a university setting (where the course trains you, as if you&#039;re a defense lawyer, to fervently and effectively argue a legal point the student realizes consciously is untrue but must learn to sell nonetheless, honing their skills of clever debate for its own sake). But elsewhere, in other venues when this happens, you begin to realize (sometimes quickly, sometimes not) that, to them, it&#039;s not just an opinion they sincerely hold; it&#039;s passive-aggression, a kind of control issue. And honest exchange -- even an alternative one offering unique points that might be a little shaky -- isn&#039;t really possible... It&#039;s a grey area, but sometimes it&#039;s not. And it&#039;s best not to engage.I wonder if Harve Smithfield ever had this problem. And maybe it&#039;s why Scotty Demarest usually lost his cases. And how did Lou Rosen fare?<img src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.9bba4e267d4ca4cb9a633b01cc65e315?rik=nUy8GGiaI3K3zA&amp;riu=http%3a%2f%2fdallasjr.free.fr%2fimages%2fharvey_smithfield.jpg&amp;ehk=vBh7mhaB%2bXYQ%2bG%2f3WLsdw8ahetyr6ULd7asy37B9mI8%3d&amp;risl=&amp;pid=ImgRaw&amp;r=0" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 699px" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarky Oracle!, post: 441934, member: 57984"] Folks can, and should, have varying opinions on just about anything. It's healthy and makes for good discussion, those differing viewpoints -- even if you don't entirely agree with them -- still valuable because they can bring up interesting specifics and details that one might never have really thought about previously... But sometimes you get into a strange arena where intelligent people -- particularly intelligent people -- decide to take a position and espouse a perspective that they [I]realize [/I]is defenseless and even ridiculous, elaborating on it elaborately and rationalizing endlessly as if they're matriculating Logic in a university setting (where the course trains you, as if you're a defense lawyer, to fervently and effectively argue a legal point the student realizes consciously is untrue but must learn to sell nonetheless, honing their skills of clever debate for its own sake). But elsewhere, in other venues when this happens, you begin to realize (sometimes quickly, sometimes not) that, to them, it's not just an opinion they sincerely hold; it's passive-aggression, a kind of control issue. And honest exchange -- even an alternative one offering unique points that might be a little shaky -- isn't really possible... It's a grey area, but sometimes it's not. And it's best not to engage. I wonder if Harve Smithfield ever had this problem. And maybe it's why Scotty Demarest usually lost his cases. And how did Lou Rosen fare? [IMG width="699px"]https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.9bba4e267d4ca4cb9a633b01cc65e315?rik=nUy8GGiaI3K3zA&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdallasjr.free.fr%2fimages%2fharvey_smithfield.jpg&ehk=vBh7mhaB%2bXYQ%2bG%2f3WLsdw8ahetyr6ULd7asy37B9mI8%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?