Metropol

I hereby wholly (and gracefully) retract the original statement (which was obviously misinterpreted).

Doesn't simpering capitulation (as opposed to a reasoned change of view) deserve a banning anyway?

It beats relentlessly sticking to an uninformed view despite it being shown to be utterly wrong.

Sput wrote:It beats relentlessly sticking to an uninformed view despite it being shown to be utterly wrong.

I expected that response from you, dearest Sput, which I why I included the part in parentheses.

Furthermore, sticking to a point of view through argument should be permitted; even if the parties ultimately don't agree. It's called debate. What Chie did was fail to adequately argue his point by providing the basis for his stance. That's different.

But, of course, that's what you're saying - rather than having a dig at me

StuartPlymouth wrote: What Chie did was fail to adequately argue his point by providing the basis for his stance. That's different.

Which is what you're doing now by saying it deserves a banning! Chie sacrificed his pride in this case which I think is a good thing on a web forum, as it stops the whole sorry affair dragging out. That's WAY less annoying than pages and pages of circular conversation where viewpoints just get restated with nothing new actually coming into it.

EDIT: And no, it's not a dig at you or your considerable ego. < THIS is a dig at you.

Sput wrote:

StuartPlymouth wrote:What Chie did was fail to adequately argue his point by providing the basis for his stance. That's different.

Which is what you're doing now by saying it deserves a banning!

Well, I was supporting Hyma's stance. Plain and simple. (strange, I know)

Sput wrote:Chie sacrificed his pride in this case which I think is a good thing on a web forum, as it stops the whole sorry affair dragging out.

So you are saying it's OK to blurt out unsubstantiated statements, as long as you can retract them later? All I said was if I have changed my viewpoint (which I have in the past) I have done so through debate, which is the point of the board.

Sput wrote:EDIT: And no, it's not a dig at you or your considerable ego. < THIS is a dig at you.

Bless. I metrolove you too: but my ego isn't as big as you hope for!

StuartPlymouth wrote:

Sput wrote:

StuartPlymouth wrote:What Chie did was fail to adequately argue his point by providing the basis for his stance. That's different.

Which is what you're doing now by saying it deserves a banning!

Well, I was supporting Hyma's stance. Plain and simple. (strange, I know)

Doesn't *really* make it any better supported but I'll let it go

Sput wrote:Chie sacrificed his pride in this case which I think is a good thing on a web forum, as it stops the whole sorry affair dragging out.

So you are saying it's OK to blurt out unsubstantiated statements, as long as you can retract them later? All I said was if I have changed my viewpoint (which I have in the past) I have done so through debate, which is the point of the board.

Hey, the media does it all the time! Part of the purpose of debate is to drill down into what people are actually saying to see if it's of any substance. In this case it was smashed at that early stage.

Sput wrote:Part of the purpose of debate is to drill down into what people are actually saying to see if it's of any substance. In this case it was smashed at that early stage.

That's lovely of you to agree, in a Sput kinda-way!

Riiight. My point is it doesn't matter WHY he backed down, but that he did - politely and without fuss. I suspect people just wanted gossip about who's who in the tvf elite.

Sput wrote:I suspect people just wanted gossip about who's who in the tvf elite.

You mean YOU did. You old 'fish wife'.

Sput wrote:That's WAY less annoying than pages and pages of circular conversation where viewpoints just get restated with nothing new actually coming into it.

Yes, I see we neatly managed to avoid that here...