I am well aware of many peoples anger over the ongoing dispute between Halplm and myself in which the focus seems to be debating tactics rather than issues. And I can well understand the frustration of other members in this regard.
I do think if all of us - Halplm and myself included, simply observe a few basic simple courtesies of debate, then we do not have to fight the constant war of tactics. Everyone thus is spared the constant digressions.
In any discussion, people are free to make any statement they want to make. Then others are free to make a personal decision what to do with that statement. Do they ignore it and move on.... or do they react to it... possibly supporting it or taking issue with it?
If someone makes a statement, I cannot react to it unless I know what type of statement it is. Is the person merely voicing their opinion or are they presenting this statement as a statement of fact? How I react to it is highly dependent on which one it is.
example: Poster A says "I hate Target stores"
Now that is clearly a statement of opinion. There is little I can do with that other than possible ask the poster to explain the reasons or state my own opinion of Target stores. But the person has a right to their opinion.
If Poster A says "Target stores have a record of ripping people off". Then that is something else entirely. That is presented as fact and can be dealt with by asking the person to support this allegation with independent outside and authoritative sources. that is the way debate- even internet debate - works. You have a right to your statements, but back them up when challenged.
But what if a poster makes a statement that is not clear to other readers? What if they say something like "Government regulation is bad for business".
Is that a statement of fact or is it a statemnt of opinion. How anyone reacts to it matters greatly which one the original poster claims it is. Nobody wants to waste valuable time researching expert sources on the net and make a well constructed post only to have that original poster come back and say "well thats just my opinion of how I feel".
The problem I have with Hal is that he refuses to back up most of his views with anything but his own beliefs and musings. He presents his own observations as facts and then uses himself as his own authoritative source to validate his "facts".
That tactic is completely contrary to any intelligent debate or discussion. It allows the person to substitute their own individual creative mental construct for reality.
This problem could be quickly remedied and ended once and for all, if this tactic would stop now. When Hal makes one of his statements, and it is not clear to another poster if it is a fact or his opinion, and he is asked which one it is, all he has to do is answer the question.
Hal only has to state if it is indeed a allegation of fact or his own personal opinion. Then we can move on from there.
If makes a statement that he views as a fact, and he is challenged to support it with outside sources,then he should do so and we can move on.
I have gotten lots of messages from people which are variations on the same theme" they all tell me that I am wasting my time debating with Hal because.... well ..." Hal is Hal... he is just being himself, and (nudge nudge, wink wink) we all know what that entails.
Is it right that everyone else here observes certain protocols of normal exchange of ideas and one person is allowed to subvert the Board with their own version of reality?
Solving this problem should be a very simple thing to do. Just ask everybody to observe the basic protocols of discussion.
- make your statements
-if asked by others, identify your statements as facts or opinions
- if you claim them to be facts, support them with outside sources validating them as facts
It is so simple to do... and is done thousands of times every day all over the internet in these types of discussions. Why can't it be done here?