BS: How to have a civil debate

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:40 AM

Jim, you and your friends raised the issue of historians today.
I merely responded to the points all of you put to me.
You say, ""historians" has become a standing joke throughout this forum."

How can you discuss history without referring to history?
That is the joke!
Historians are the source of our knowledge of history.

All of you found that your cherished beliefs are rejected by the historians, so you rejected the historians.
Musket said, "those historians should know better."
That was a real joke.
All of you accepted it. Only Teribus and I saw it as ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:27 AM

Keith intends to continue every battle he's ever lost on any thread

I would posit that resorting to name calling and other forms of abuse are signs that one has lost the "battle". There are several posters here who employ this tactic considerably more than does Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:18 AM

""They used to call it the 'Great War'. But I'll be damned if I could tell you what was so 'great' about it. They also called it 'the war to end all wars'...'cause they figured it was so big and awful that the world'd just have to come to its senses and make damn sure we never fought another one ever again. 
That woulda been a helluva nice story.
But the truth's got an ugly way of killin' nice stories."" 
― Max Brooks

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:14 AM

"No thoughts had I of anything,
Or at least that's what I thought;
I even thought I couldn't think,
But, now I think I never thought." 
― Christopher Miller, At This Point in Time

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:43 AM

It seems Keith intends to continue every battle he's ever lost on any thread he can lay hands on so I would suggest that, if people are interested in having a civil debate, they leave him to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:28 AM

We then moved on the Dawkins Ales brew named Bristol Blonde at 3.8% a Chocolate Cherry Mild at 3.8% from Dunham Massey and an Elgoods EPA at 4.3% which was rather disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:27 AM

In a real sense all historians are revisionist, and so are all scientists. Even if the process of reviewing the evidence and the way it can be interpreted ends up as more or less confirming existing prevalent beliefs, this process is essentially revisionist.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:25 AM

So what exactly are you doing now?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:11 AM

Jim,
it is outrageous that you should do so, and then indulge in the string of abuse you did, much to the amusement (and embarrassment of all involved - you were asked on numerous occasions top stop, yet you persisted until the thread closed.

That is the opposite of the truth.
I was called all manner of abusive names by you, but I remained above that.
There was no abuse from me so obviously I was not asked to stop, never having started.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:06 AM

Musket,
And your claim is based on, Keith?
What claim?
I made no claim about you.

Jim, I have read extensively on WW1.
I have not read any books on the famine, but it is easy and quick to find that facts are disputed by historians of the period.
I also quoted historians saying that those who apportion blame are actually a minority.

Can you challenge a single thing that I have said on the subject?
You have not so far.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:46 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

Chalky's Bite, developed by that great man at Sharp's, Stuart Howe, is superb. But can anything better a cold bottle or four of Duvel? Answers referring to pasteurised bottled beers will be scoffed at...

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

See?....they could easily open a thread on the relative merits of different sorts of beers....or could they?

Well maybe they could get their mums to do it for them   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:34 AM

We also sampled Hopping Toad 4.1% from Castor Ales in Peterborough, Mosaic Gold 4.2% from Coastal Brewery, Redruth and a fine Yakima Gold 4.2% from Crouch Vale Brewery.

Crouch Vale was where my buddy learnt his skill and he was head brewer there when they won Champion Beer with their Brewers Gold in 2005 and 2006 using a recipe developed by him. The only brewer every to claim that distinction twice.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:24 AM

I don't usually respond to Team Musket posts, but how can you acuse Keith of "childish stupidity" whe 3/4 of you share a username just "to wind folk up"?

That signifies to me that you and your associates are the childish ones and more importantly, wish to impede debate on this forum.
The same tactic is being used at this moment by your supporters who are trying to derail the discussion by the posting of messages with no connection to the subject being discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:23 AM

What club?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:04 AM

And your claim is based on, Keith? You say I don't exist and that another Musket is a liar. Any reason why I should be civil to you? Any reason why I shouldn't point out your childish stupidity on threads? Or your disgusting bigotry?

Belfry isn't bad at all Raggytash. I was drinking it at Coal Aston Village Hall recently, and confused it with a weaker one they do. My second set wasn't my crowning moment...

Yes but although Animal is great drummer and is based on Keith Moon, The Great Gonzo was artistic in his use of chickens, although other references in the show to him and the chickens might make Operation Yew Tree raise an eye lid. Or would had he been over here....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 06:06 AM

We had a whole raft of beers at the festival. From Abbeydale Brewery, Sheffield we had Belfry 4.5% made with Cascade hops. From Blue Monkey Brewery, Nottinghamshire we had Sanctuary 4.5%. From Butts Brewery, Hungerford we had Jester a 3.5% session beer.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 05:19 AM

"I learn it from history books."
You cl;early stated on The Famine that you are have read nothing on it nor does the subject interest you.
Having openly said that, you have no grounds whatever of claiming what you claimed and it is outrageous that you should do so, and then indulge in the string of abuse you did, much to the amusement (and embarrassment of all involved - you were asked on numerous occasions top stop, yet you persisted until the thread closed.
Quoting historians requires having read and understood them to some degree - and - most of all, being interested in the subject under discussion.
I deliberately avoided mentioning names as such behaviour is widely known enough not to have to - "historians" has become a standing joke throughout this forum .
I have no intention of spoiling this useful thread by trawling over old ground with you - that does not make for civil debate, but, if you persist in such behavior, reasonable discussion will not be possible and threads will continue to be closed.   
I have said what I have to say on your behaviour - as far as I am concerned, the matter is over here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 05:01 AM

Clarifying my position on history.
I learn it from history books.
They are written by historians subject to intense peer review to do the research to support their findings.

On the famine, I showed that historians dispute the issue of blame.
Jim denied that fact, but it is a fact.
Sorry Jim.

On WW1 I showed that, for the last twenty years, a consensus had emerged about certain issues.

I listen with respect to people who believe the historians are all wrong, but I think they know rather more about it.

Al, a statement from a participant is a primary source.
There are many thousands documented and used in historical research.
The findings are now in the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 04:43 AM

Al,
Keith seems to think so.
I do not.

Kevin, I will say "all of you" in future."

Musket,
Coming from Keith, that's a bit rich, seeing how he claims I don't even exist.

I do not, but have expressed the opinion that all Musket posts are by the same hand.

Steve, you expressed an opinion about that club, not an unsubstantiated accusation.
Dave said, Dave,I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

I replied,
"Of course you can!
Suppose you were accused of child abuse.
Unless the accuser produced court reports or some other evidence, it would be an unsubstantiated accusation, but hard for you to disprove it.
And, why should you have to?

I would not approve of someone doing that to you and would make my feelings known.
I am disappointed that you would not do the same yourself."

Would you Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM

"I do not know whether any allegations are substantiated. None but those involved can possibly know. I did make that point earlier but as it seems to have been ignored I am repeating it here. Neither am I going to go and check court records or any such thing about things that do not involve me. I am not going to take sides on something I do not know about"

OK Dave, so you think that if I were to go round the threads saying that you had been charged and found guilty of the most heinous crimes and that it was all a matter of public record, that we should all accept that as part of civil discussion because no member knows for sure whether the accusation is right or wrong?

That does not make sense, nor do any of your other utterances on this particular subject......you are simply unwilling to admit that people who behave in this manner are not fit to take part in civil debate.

I have seen the people you support make snide references to "operation Yew Tree" investigations, or references to dementia aimed at older people who have bettered them in debate. That is a Team Musket favourite.

The only reason these tactics are used, is that they are cornered, have run out of answers, and have not the guts to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 03:29 AM

As I understand it, Historians produce a mixture of fact and analysis of those facts; quite often, they carry an agenda (revisionist history), which adapts their findings to prevailing circumstances- hence the widely varying accounts of the same subjects.
One thing is certain, in order to understand the subjects under discussion, it is necessary to have put in some time into reading them up -
It is not acceptable to scoop up out-of-context quotes to fit pre-conceived notions, ignoring the subject as a whole.
Nor is it acceptable to fall back on claims of "not being a historian" - none of us are, to my knowledge.
It is completely outrageous to express a disinterest in a subject, then continue to argue on the basis of both self-declared ignorance and disinterest, often swamping the discussion out of existence.
THat is what has killed thread and has caused uncivil debate.
We come here to learn and to exchange ideas, not to "win".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 03:12 AM

Animal on the drums.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 02:18 AM

All this tosh about "unsubstantiated". Coming from Keith, that's a bit rich, seeing how he claims I don't even exist.

Can't wait to see Keith's take on Al's point that historians can only ever be secondary source. His faith in his cherry picked list of historians is up there with "you people" and "I'm right so you are wrong."

On other matters.

The Great Gonzo beats Animal hands down. When he plays drums, he uses live chickens.

Mind you, now that Goofus has weighed in, we can suspend reality for once and for all. If he and Akenaton start kicking off again with their absurd claims about people, it puts "civil" in a whole new dustbin (or garbage can in Goofus's mother tongue.)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Janie
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:31 PM

In the fwiw department, Bill, I noticed. Also noticing McGrath's comments. Thank you both.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:07 PM

You're welcome, Dave tG... evidently you are the only one who noticed I said anything. Most are too busy sparring and defending to spend any time contemplating.

I would not be surprised to see this thread closed as folks push the limits in their efforts to wave their own flag.

Ah well...

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:29 PM

"You people" pretty well always tends to have a distancing, dismissive and even contemptuous ring to it. "All of you" is a better way of collectively addressing a number of people, if "you" might be misleading (since we use the word for single people as well, English having very strangely abandoned using "thee" and "thou").

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:29 PM

years ago i did a degree with a bit of a history module.

one of the things they taught us was that what someone told you who had been at a battle was a primary source.

what the historian, who had not been there, thought about the battle was a secondary source.

and primary sources beat secondary sources hands down.

could a historian - a professional one - tell me if the thinking on that has changed?

Keith seems to think so. I would like it rubber stamped by someone who can clear up this point.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 07:43 PM

Actually, when I come to think of it, one of the irritating aspects of some of our debates is misrepresentation. When you have to waste time trying to tell the forum that what has been said about you, or about what you've said, is off-beam, it can be very annoying. Sometimes it looks like a deliberate wind-up. You have just done this to me, Keith, haven't you, so I've just had to waste posting time putting you right, not for the first time. I'd rather post just giving my opinions, but people like you often get in the way by forcing this distraction on us. Says a lot about your intellect and about your motives, it does, one could surmise. It wouldn't be half so bad were my English poor or full of long and difficult words, but I don't think I'm too bad in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 07:28 PM

I did not contrast any statements. I pointed out the glaring non sequitur you made. I am quite clear than unsubstantiated does not mean false. The English language is such a wonderful thing.


Which does not mean that I am always keen on unsubstantiated statements, though they can on occasion be forgivable. Liverpool are the finest team in the land, for example. Others claim that there is such a thing as a God. I think you may be one of those people.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:47 PM

Hi Sanity! :0) Don't tell me you're Modette???

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:44 PM

Ya' think???????

GfS

P.S. Hi, Ake....Warmest regards to you!!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM

Keith, I think you will find Modette has more of an aversion to truth than any form of words.
I don't think Modette has any connection to admin.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:29 PM

Modette, what a strange aversion.
I often use that expression myself to save typing out a list of names.
Perfectly civil.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:14 PM

"The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club… " -Chuck Palahniuk, movie Fight Club

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:09 PM

Steve, you contrasted these two statements,
Slander and libel is not acceptable but, not being a legal expert, I cannot comment on whether such an act was committed.

You do not need to be a legal expert to recognise an unsubstantiated accusation.

You should have contrasted these three,
I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

There should be sanctions and consequences for anyone who attacks a member with gratuitous, unsubstantiated accusations.

You do not need to be a legal expert to recognise an unsubstantiated accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:00 PM

to 'be' abhorrent.

Apologies for the omission.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,modette
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:27 PM

Personally, I find any poster who uses the phrase 'you people' to abhorrent.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:19 PM

The choice isn't really between just walking away, and letting our feelings be known, Dave. It's between different ways of letting our feelings be known. It can be more effective, and equally satisfying, to do it in a way that avoids raising the temperature. That is especially the case if you are dealing with someone who actually enjoys getting people to lose their cool.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:02 PM

Sorry, I am using a tablet and it seems to be causing premature ejaculation!

...I do not know about, nor am I going to comment on who I believe. You can check as far back as you like and you will not find any example of me doing so. What you may take heart in, and again this can be verified, is that I always think the best of people until they prove me wrong. Not many here have ever done so. You can rest assured that I do not believe any allegation unless it comes with concrete evidence. I will not deny that the one making the allegation may know something I don't, but unless they furnish that evidence I will take the allegation with an (in)healthy pinch of salt.

Hope this helps and send me all you strong vibes for tomorrow. I will need them :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:50 PM

Wonderful posts, Raedwulf. Both of them. Thank you. Good stuff from Bill as well. Thank you, Bill. The thread is getting a bit specific in a couple of areas. That is not what I intended and, to be honest, I am getting tired of fighting a corner that some are trying to paint me in to, so I am taking a quick break. Busy day tomorrow as we are moving my daughters. There are a couple of points I would like to address before I lose my wits moving furniture though. They both hinge around the subject of unsubstantiated allegations so I can deal with them in one paragraph.

I do not know whether any allegations are substantiated. None but those involved can possibly know. I did make that point earlier but as it seems to have been ignored I am repeating it here. Neither am I going to go and check court records or any such thing about things that do not involve me. I am not going to take sides on something I do not know about

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:25 PM

There are lots of sly mentions of old battles in this thread, some deleted, others ignored in an effort to keep it on the rails, but the flushing sound looms as the downward spiral gains momentum.

It was a valiant effort, Mr. Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:18 PM

Just to clarify, one of the libels was, that I had been "charged and found guilty of the crime of cruelty to animals, and that the greyhound authorities had banned me from owning or training greyhounds for ten year.....this was a matter of public record"

That's pretty specific! As I see animal cruelty on a par with child abuse I fail to see why I should have to defend myself in court as Dave suggests. The accusation is completely false, I own four racing dogs at present and have never at any time been in any sort of bother with the Greyhound racing board. The accuser has never posted any evidence to back up his accusation, because there is none.
These sorts of accusations are disgraceful, as Keith has said, what if you Dave were falsely accused of being a child abuser on this forum by someone who refused to give any evidence for the accusation?
I would not believe it AND I would condemn it.
You people stick together like glue, you haven't a clue what civil discussion involves.   Your tactics in this case are to intimidate, to silence, to shut down debate.......weasels to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:04 PM

"so your cap certainly does not fit me."
Nobody said it does - methinks the lady doth protest too much
"How very true, Jim."
Nice that we agree about something Bryan
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:53 PM

I have been quite busy RT, and somehow missed this thread... which may be a good thing, since I would have neglected too much of my RT business... (is that Meta?)

I will say several things.... DtG is to be commended for trying to guide discussion/debate by referring to rules of civility. I did read his original link, and found it well stated and useful... especially this concept.
"Try your darndest to see the other side."

However, once you have decided you DO see the other side, the manner in which you respond to it defines YOU. There have been, for many years here, admonishments about 'reasonable behavior' in these discussions. This means...or should mean... discussing the issue, not the individual. I can't see any way to illustrate this except by one of the most obvious examples...
    Referring to someone's comments as "bigoted" IS essentially calling that person a bigot... which IS an insult, no matter how sincerely you believe it. This also implies you have the power to 'see' the intent and quality of a person's character- which is far beyond merely disputing his assertions or facts. This is one of the main reasons why threads get closed or comments deleted!
I have, on occasion, been admonished for NOT being harsher in my comments about certain people. I have also been called to task for NOT using a particular argument against 'my side' that I had used against 'the other side'...once in a thread I had not even ever opened!
There is a position called "righteous indignation", in which someone feels obligated to condemn some event, position, person or situation because.... well, because they feel "righteous" about it to the extent that they also feel no concomitant obligation to show restraint. I'm not sure what this feels like from the inside, but I'm sure that in many/most forums (fora?), unrestrained righteous indignation is dealt with by only slightly restrained moderation.

I have, for over 15 years, debated & discussed many issues here, and explained at length my reasons for my positions, as well as having explained my understanding about technical points of logic, syntax, reasoning and rhetoric. I intend to be here as long as Max allow this unusual forum to exist... even if it has to be limited to just folkish music.
I really hope that people with strong opinions can manage to 'share' those opinions using the approximate guidelines explicated in DtG's opening link. I will not hold my breath, as I don't look good when I turn blue....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:49 PM

Keith - I rarely respond to you directly. But all too many of the most unpleasant & poisonous threads I've read have YOU as a very active participant. Frequently, your contributions, by volume, swamp the responses of anyone else. You're on the way to doing it here (I discount DavetG's contributions - he started the thread, so he's entitled to respond to everyone).

See above - why don't you take a minute to stop & think? How many people do you think pay attention to what you say? How many do you think see "Keith A..." and react to that rather than to what you actually say? Is that why you are here? Do you want people to consider your opinion, or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

Me, I'd rather be understood than agreed with, as I've already said. You? I dunno... I'm sure you're a thoroughly nice chap, but as a random bunch of pixels, you've a hell of a track record at pissing off other random pixels! Just a thought... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:41 PM

"Slander and libel is not acceptable but, not being a legal expert, I cannot comment on whether such an act was committed."

You do not need to be a legal expert to recognise an unsubstantiated accusation.

An unsubstantiated accusation is not at all the same thing as slander or libel. An unsubstantiated accusation may well be true. "Unsubstantiated" does not mean "false". Dictionaries are available for the use of the uncertain.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:31 PM

Jim Carroll

The problems with having civil debates with some people (not mentioning any names) is that those who complain the loudest about "abuse and incivility" are, more often that not, the most abusive and uncivil of us all.

How very true, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:23 PM

Jim,
those who complain the loudest about "abuse and incivility" are, more often that not, the most abusive and uncivil of us all.

I complain loudly, but am not abusive or uncivil even when on the receiving end, so your cap certainly does not fit me.
Why so coy about who it is?
What are you afraid of?