urcm 'hypothetical' scenario

What do you think would happen if someone (let's call them Person A)
won a transport-related debate against the likes of Alan Braggins, Ian
Jackson, Peter Clinch, David Damerell, Andy Leighton, etc (let's call
them **** B)? (Not that such a thing would ever occur, of course...)

1) **** B would graciously and publicly accept that he had lost the
debate, change his stance on the debated matter, and thank Person A
for advancing their knowledge. [The scientific, reasonable approach,
without which humanity would be very much worse off.]

2) **** B would deeply resent Person A for daring to expose their
(possibly willful) ignorance on the topic concerned. **** B would
loudly declare that he had killfiled Person A, and refuse to change
his public stance on the debated matter, even if lives were at stake.
**** B would harbour a permanent, vicious grudge against Person A, and
if Person A ever tried to post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated, **** B
(together with the other moderators) would make absolutely sure that
their posts were rejected and they felt utterly unwelcome, whatever
they actually posted. [The uk.rec.cycling.moderated ****wit moderator
approach.]


I don't believe that a single person genuinely believes that 1)
applies (we'll soon see!), which is a damning indictment of the
deplorable, arrogant, intolerant attitude displayed by the likes of
Alan Braggins and David Damerell. No doubt others will also be keen to
show how like Braggins and Damerell they are, by either making a
derogatory, generalised reply to this post in the full, bitter
knowledge that it is absolutely (but inconveniently) correct, or being
all big and pretending to ignore it altogether. Either way, it's a
case of wow, I'm in awe.

Truth hurts, eh? :-)

(Why do such delicate little flowers, who are so terrified of ever
being proved wrong, come to Usenet of all places at all? It's very,
very strange and illogical, but thereagain such people generally are.)


(If anyone reasonable (i.e. not 'Tony' or 'Percy Picacity') is reading
this and agreeing with it, but thinking that the castigation of urcm
moderators is maybe going a bit far at the moment, sorry if you feel
that way. This'll be the last such topic for now, at least from me!
Thank you for your patience. ****wits do of course need exposing as
****wits as part of their punishment for being ****wits, but YMMV.)

On 11/10/12 03:58, Ian Jackman wrote:
What do you think would happen if someone (let's call them Person A)
won a transport-related debate against the likes of Alan Braggins, Ian
Jackson, Peter Clinch, David Damerell, Andy Leighton, etc (let's call
them **** B)? (Not that such a thing would ever occur, of course...)

Sorry, I immediately have difficulty with the concept of "winning" a
usenet debate.

People are sometimes wrong about points of detail. They may need to be
corrected about regulations, laws, the text of the highway code. But
neither they nor anyone else reading will necessarily have a complete
change of mind on the bigger issue.

I respect anyone who posts "good point, you've convinced me" but that is
rare to see. It's more likely that a person will stop posting to that
thread and wait for something else to argue about. In a moderated group
you can of course reject anything that is neither courteous nor takes
the debate forward.

In article , The Todal wrote:
People are sometimes wrong about points of detail. They may need to be
corrected about regulations, laws, the text of the highway code. But
neither they nor anyone else reading will necessarily have a complete
change of mind on the bigger issue.

I respect anyone who posts "good point, you've convinced me" but that is
rare to see.

Sorry, I immediately have difficulty with the concept of "winning" a
usenet debate.

It's rare, but it does happen. The cycle helmet debate is one example
there's a lot of repetition and entrenched positions, but people have
changed their minds on the overall issue when presented with evidence
and/or reasoned argument. Not that that has any relevance to Nuxx.

But in terms of impartial judges deciding one team has won, of course
Usenet bears no real resemblance to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Competitive_debate

In article , Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Todal wrote:

I respect anyone who posts "good point, you've convinced me" but that is
rare to see.

Sorry, I immediately have difficulty with the concept of "winning" a
usenet debate.

That bit should also have been quoted, it was part of Todal's post I trimmed then
put back after all. Sorry for any confusion.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Ian Jackman wrote:

Truth hurts, eh? :-)

Truth in Nuxxworld is a bit too independent of reality.

On 11 Okt., 04:58, Ian Jackman wrote:

No doubt others will also be keen to
show how like Braggins and Damerell they are, by either making a
derogatory, generalised reply to this post in the full, bitter
knowledge that it is absolutely (but inconveniently) correct, or being
all big and pretending to ignore it altogether. Either way, it's a
case of wow, I'm in awe.


There's a third option, which is to ask why you're so bothered about
all this.