The Newbury today 2012 Legolympiad: Jason against the Argonauts, debate Options

[dannyboy]

Like I said: it is sometimes wise to accept when one is beaten!

Never.

To be honest I didn't read 75% of the legoland threads - just the ones which had someone other than SK replying to them.

It is a bit like moaning about getting a parking ticket on a free parking day cos you didn't read the small print on the signs clearly stated you still needed a ticket.

[Andy Capp]

Never.

To be honest I didn't read 75% of the legoland threads - just the ones which had someone other than SK replying to them.

It is a bit like moaning about getting a parking ticket on a free parking day cos you didn't read the small print on the signs clearly stated you still needed a ticket.

Does this mean you don't now believe that Simon is debating with himself?

[dannyboy]

Does this mean you don't now believe that Simon is debating with himself?

No - I still have not read the small print.

[Cognosco]

No - I still have not read the small print.

And you do not find this statement slightly hypocritical?

[Andy Capp]

And you do not find this statement slightly hypocritical?

Well he demonstrably wanted to send out the message regardless of the truth, but it is now evident that he is not sure.

[dannyboy]

And you do not find this statement slightly hypocritical?

Nope.

Sk is posting all the replies - Easy to get confused when doing this, especially if you are trying to post annonymously using psudonymns.

[dannyboy]

Well he demonstrably wanted to send out the message regardless of the truth, but it is now evident that he is not sure.

Isn't hat the point of a debate?

Truth has little part to play.

[Nothing Much]

"Breck a kek kek qoax quax." Its all greek to me.
If I find the book it could be Aristophanes
ce.

[Andy Capp]

Nope. Sk is posting all the replies - Easy to get confused when doing this, especially if you are trying to post annonymously using psudonymns.

Isn't hat the point of a debate?Truth has little part to play.

Truth is not necessary in a debate, but it is welcome when it makes an appearance.

[Roger T]

I guess accusing people of pretending to be another person... a common thread, on this forum.

[Andy Capp]

I guess accusing people of pretending to be another person... a common thread, on this forum.

... is what?

[dannyboy]

Truth is not necessary in a debate, but it is welcome when it makes an appearance.

But knowing if it did appear would surely depend on the gullibility of the audience & eleoquence of the debaters.

[Andy Capp]

But knowing if it did appear would surely depend on the gullibility of the audience & eleoquence of the debaters.

An absence of debate will not grantee truth either, notwithstanding you posted an opinion in a manner that suggested you were convinced the posts were fraudulent; however, someone has offered to put their money where their mouth is. £10.00 lies between you knowing the truth or remaining in ignorance.

[Cognosco]

But knowing if it did appear would surely depend on the gullibility of the audience & eleoquence of the debaters.

I would prefer to think that knowing it did appear would be when it was backed up with facts that could be proven?
But then again that would not be enough for someone who is wearing rose tinted glasses as far as our local authorities are concerned would it?

[dannyboy]

I would prefer to think that knowing it did appear would be when it was backed up with facts that could be proven?
But then again that would not be enough for someone who is wearing rose tinted glasses as far as our local authorities are concerned would it?

I'd hate to think what would happen if there was a real local balls up. You know, something important. Something worthy of 'rotten boroughs'......instead of the usual trival ***** up which happen every day, all over the country.

Oh, & btw, never let the facts spoil a good debate.

[Biker1]

It is a bit like moaning about getting a parking ticket on a free parking day cos you didn't read the small print on the signs clearly stated you still needed a ticket.

No it didn't "clearly state" as has been established.
If it "clearly stated" then me and many others would not have made the mistake.
Why are you raising this again?
Have you never fallen foul of the "small print"? I bet you have!
On top of that the argument was CEO's targeting those who had fallen foul as "easy pickings" not so much the fact that we had done so.
(I think we are upsetting Simon's little games here but I didn't raise something from another thread that didn't need to be and is well out of context !)

[dannyboy]

No it didn't "clearly state" as has been established.
If it "clearly stated" then me and many others would not have made the mistake.
Why are you raising this again?
Have you never fallen foul of the "small print"? I bet you have!

I didn't read it either.

[Biker1]

I didn't read it either.

[Exhausted]

What I was moaning about was the fact that suddenly the forum gets taken over by one person and that to my mind was the crux of the matter. Simon could have co-opted his people, he could be posting himself but at the end of the day, I don't want to play the silly game. Other people might, but what do the opponents have to offer other than their personal opinions which may be valid although I would want to know who they were and what their qualifications were to take part in a debate. People who do like to hear the sound of their own voices and take part in verbal debates make it quite clear who they are and where they stand in society.
Anyway, I don't want to participate in a nonsense bet as I would be prepared to believe that the people who are representing the opponents/contestants/participants might be real but they are anonymous forum names which are meaningless. I have three identities on the forum so I could be arguing for two people.

[Andy Capp]

What I was moaning about was the fact that suddenly the forum gets taken over by one person and that to my mind was the crux of the matter. Simon could have co-opted his people, he could be posting himself but at the end of the day, I don't want to play the silly game. Other people might, but what do the opponents have to offer other than their personal opinions which may be valid although I would want to know who they were and what their qualifications were to take part in a debate. People who do like to hear the sound of their own voices and take part in verbal debates make it quite clear who they are and where they stand in society.
Anyway, I don't want to participate in a nonsense bet as I would be prepared to believe that the people who are representing the opponents/contestants/participants might be real but they are anonymous forum names which are meaningless. I have three identities on the forum so I could be arguing for two people.

You said it!