What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Marypoza]

(02-10-2017, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[/understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

--uh, mebbe bcuz Eric is guilty of alot of this shit? Maybe that's why ppl here aren't taking this thread seriously? When l posted my original response above l had just come off a thread where Eric called somebody deluded bcuz their pov was different from his. But you have a point, Bob. This thread s/b taken seriously. Sometimes it's just hard to take Eric seriously

Can't argue with this.  If an extreme partisan does little but throw chum, would anyone expect or notice a serious attempt at conversation?  If the water is loaded with blood and chum, what is a poor shark to do?  I seriously sympathize with a desire to change the conversation, to find a new angle, but a lot of folks are so extremely committed to the old angles that they have squandered any potential to have anyone with conflicting values take them seriously.

-- good analogy about angles. When Eric pisses ppl off, how much of that has to do with their old angles? Not his

Bob Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Bob Wrote:It would help to throw less chum.

--mebbe chum is the wrong term. How about devil's advocate? To get a discussion going?

Better.  I don't think our problem is starting discussions, though.  The problem is getting serious conversations with both sides listening.  Controversy for controversy's sake might not be the way to go at this point.

-- perhaps. But mebbe if a discussion has pretty much stopped, or devolved, throwing the devil's advocate wrench in there can sometimes get it going again