Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
In an ongoing debate with the same people on a forum where it's possible to go back and read posts, it shouldn't be necessary to make the same points over and over again as long as they're somewhat understandably articulated the first time.
|
True. That's exactly how I've felt every time I've seen you say you don't understand why people compare cannabis prohibition in the US to alcohol prohibition in the US despite the fact that the reasoning behind the comparison has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
To respond to large posts in a least effort way by not acknowledging any of the points made, but just taking easy one-liner stabs and comments in a way that makes the opposition have to articulate any point over and over again is a pretty common way of trying to lead discussions on the net, usually by frustrating or tiring out the opposition who ends up having to do all the work. Perhaps I was wrong, but it looked to me like that was what you were doing.
|
Well, sorry for not writing longer posts I guess. I used to be the kind of person who would write very long-winded replies in an online debate, but eventually I felt like I was just boring the pants off of people. So I started trying to keep my post short and to the point in an effort to help move the conversation along. I felt like, in this conversation, I was addressing the points that were being made and if I missed one, I assure you it was by accident.
Threaded Mode