Rick Davis
472 posts
Jun 05, 2010
9:25 AM
|
Online communities like this work best when the members abide by a tacit agreement that arguments cannot be “won.” I have been competitive and relentlessly argumentative, which does not work well in a forum meant for the sharing of opinions. I apologize for that.
Ironically (or not) these traits of mine that disrupt the forum are the same traits that make me good at my profession, political campaign management. I get paid to research issues and frame winning arguments. I should leave that at the door when I enter the forum.
I often hang in online political forums that are much different: Arguments are carefully crafted and then savagely attacked. Scorn is heaped on those who offer weak or unsupported claims. It can be brutal, and those whose egos are easily bruised do not last long. I carried a bit of that ethic into this place, and I regret it.
Those of you familiar with the American political system know that we are rolling toward an extremely competitive political season. There is a frenzy of activity behind the scenes now as candidates and campaigns research the issues and frame their arguments, or hire someone like me to do it. I will be intensely busy for a few months, so I will not be present here at MBH. I’ll check in again after the general elections in November.
Again, my apologies. If you have any questions you can reach me through the Blues Harp Amps Blog. Keep on harpin'!
-Rick Davis
|
gene
483 posts
Jun 05, 2010
11:46 AM
|
Hey Rick,
I,m not responding to the intent of your post because I really don't know what exactly you're talking about. I just wanna throw in an opinion I have about debates in political and legal environments.
In politics and law, decisions are made that effect peoples' lives. I do not like the combative style of debate whereas major decisions are based upon the skill of the debator and not necessarily upon the merits of the case. I detest the adversarial system of justice for that reason.
I would prefer a system that looks more like a team of experts of various fields working together to find the right answer. You'd have to have experts that have no stake in winning. They're just their to find the truth.
It'll never happen, so I'm just talkin' for the heck of it.
Last Edited by on Jun 05, 2010 11:50 AM
|
Tin Lizzie
82 posts
Jun 05, 2010
1:27 PM
|
I want to live in Gene's world.
But I am not responding to anything Rick said, cuz I don't know what sparked the apology either.
----------
Tin Lizzie
Last Edited by on Jun 05, 2010 2:00 PM
|
Delta Dirt
160 posts
Jun 05, 2010
1:30 PM
|
Theres many similarities between politics and marketing of amps. Half truths, manipulation,personal vendettas,denials,and bovine scatology a.k.a Bull SHIT.
|
JDH
141 posts
Jun 05, 2010
2:03 PM
|
+1 for Gene's world. Thanks for clearing that up, Rick, now I know why my BS detector goes off every time I see your name.
|
tmf714
145 posts
Jun 05, 2010
2:19 PM
|
You know,there's an old saying-if it smells like sh**,
then it's probably sh**.
|
kudzurunner
1546 posts
Jun 05, 2010
5:53 PM
|
Guys: Rick's apology is a model of how to do an apology. Please allow it, without rancor--and without using the word "shit." We're all allowed a reset.
--Sheriff Bob
|
MP
418 posts
Jun 05, 2010
8:17 PM
|
he never bothered me in the slightest.
|
Joe_L
340 posts
Jun 05, 2010
10:28 PM
|
He never really bothered me, either. Rick can be outspoken, but he's no different than many forum members.
|
atty1chgo
4 posts
Jun 06, 2010
9:07 AM
|
Just want to throw my two cents in on arguments (political or otherwise) online debates, and winning or losing them. I would disagree that online arguments either "cannot be won" or that there should be a tacit agreement that they cannot be won. Debate, when avoiding personal attack, can be healthy, All opinions do not have the same validity or weight. The by-product of a healthy debate should be that minds and opinions are or can be influenced, and perhaps changed. I would offer that "winning" a debate is in the eyes and mind of the reader. There are two things that should be avoided in a debate if possible: personal ad hominem attack, and political correctness. Absent those blights, I say let 'er rip! When talking music and related subjects, of course emotions run high. But one man's (or woman's) bullshit may be another man's revelation. Going through life playing nicey-nice with everyone without adversarial reactions can be stifling too. It's not always about making sure everyone wins and gets a trophy or is not offended. Everyone is human. Let's just have fun here. But the same spirit which drives our debate also drives our hunger for this music that we are all hear to experience and savor and master. Let's not let that enthusiasm fade.
|
atty1chgo
5 posts
Jun 06, 2010
11:32 AM
|
I was just talking about general stuff. Debate isn't a scientific experiment. Intellectual honesty is up to the debater, and will be ferreted out soon enough if everyone BS detectors work properly. But I guess my point is that absent a personal attack or some politically correct idea that "everyone gets a prize", debate should be seeking the truth without worrying about niceties.
|
paul45
28 posts
Jun 06, 2010
4:19 PM
|
Ditto Joe L's comment
|
