The Debate with ScoutPL continues...

[Guest Big Time Software]

And now I am getting personally attacked as a moderator? How nice.

Please do a search on "locked" to see WHY we lock threads. It is not censorship, rather a very deliberate attempt to keep discussion from wandering off the topic too far. You can do things the way you like on your BBSes, but we can do things the way we like on ours. I have been moderating this one for almost 2 years, so I think I can handle it just fine, thanks very kindly. 140,000 messages on this BBS clearly shows that we are doing more right than wrong at the very least.

And then into a nice personal attack on me, based on one post. Twice as nice:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmmmmm... were did I say that Pillar was wrong and that anything out of ScoutPL's mouth should be taking as the word of God? Nowhere. Quite the contrary, I wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please try and not attack ScoutPL because he knows a lot more about recon that either you or I do. Question and debate him, that is fine, but please try and keep it civil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but I kindly ask that you do not bring it in here and challenge me to knock it off.

Pillar, I am sorry that I sounded as if I am totally siding with ScoutPL. I asked you to BOTH keep it down.

You asked for specifics about what I found objectionable from the very start, this line is pretty good:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is the most US-Centric claim I've ever seen on this board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You then went on to claim that the type of recon you are trying to advocate is "superior", yet provide no basis for that conclusion. Then you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So ScoutPL, please stop telling everyone that anything short of your US influenced doctrine is "gamey" and do a little searching for the NTC debates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about anybody else, but I for one do not find this to be constructive or non-offensive.

And all of this was in your first post with the title of "The Debate with ScoutPL continues...". If you did not wish to make this personal, putting his name in the subject line of the thread wasn't a good start.

As for what really set ScoutPL off in this thread was the following quote from you:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Soviet style is far more careful with human life than the American style. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't blame him for getting upset. You have made a VERY strong statement and have not backed it up. To me this is something that discredits your side of the debate, but to someone that does this for a living, it is an insult to his profession as well as his duty to carry it out. That is why I asked you to not "attack" him. Intentionally or not, you have been doing just that.

Argh... more hastle than is needed here. Look, people can play the game however they want. People can also lable this or that "gamey". Why people feel such a need to go for each other's throats over this is beyond me...

Steve

[Guest Pillar]

Tris,

I appreciate the support and I'm glad you recognize my defensive posture. However, I don't think Steve was meaning to lock this post or somehow censor our debate. He's only asking that if we do decide to debate, that it be civil and scholarly. This is only what I've been asking for all along.

I was rather enthusiastic about breaking down ScoutPL's generalisations and labels at the beginning of this thread. I'm growing tired of it now. If people still believe at this point that Soviet tactics are:

"Gamey", "Wasteful", "Bludgeoning", "Brutish", "Lacking Finesse", "Unsound", etc... then they haven't been reading what I've said.

I think ScoutPL said it well...This conversation is over.

If someone more open minded wants to talk with me, I welcome it.

[Dervulf]

Might I make a friendly suggestion here?

One that would make EVERYONE happy.

I'm not the first to suggest this (cant remember who was first) but I think it bears repeating.

both Pillar and ScoutPL need to stop discussing the issue and settle it on the 3D field of honor.

You both obviosly know a bit about the subject matter But have differing philosophy's. So play each other and see who's philosophy works better.

And post a running commentary of the battle here. (giving nothing away that the enemy might use of course)

I for one would be very interested in seeing how this "clash of titons" would play out.

I also think that it would lower the level of animosity here. You two might also get a new found respect for one another.(some of my best friends are people who I started out as not being on friendly terms with)

Just a suggestion and as Mr. Buffer would put it.....

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!

[Guest Madmatt]

Tris said:

"MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about?"

Well apparently you didn't read the thread as it wasn't about politics but about my nightly CMHQ update. I was just using the ongoing spectacle as a backdrop.

Madmatt

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

When I conducted a leaders recon as a company commander I would cross into enemy territory a couple hours before the company was scheduled to move out. The XO would maneuver the company while I conducted my recon of the objective and we would link up prior to moving into the assault and support positions. Keep in mind that my recon was merely to confirm that the plan we had already discussed and rehearsed would work. Any last minute changes would be made and we would conduct the attack. This was very rare since we rarely had so much time to conduct a recon, usually we had to go with what the S2 gave us and make the best of it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, coming to Pillars defense and, with due respect to soutPL, I find some serious problem with this statement regaurding US scouting doctrine.

Leaders recons are in no way conducted to seek out hidden enemy ambushes or gather information about fire power capabilites of the enemy. This information is not collected at company level, it's collected at Battalion and Brigade level. The purpose for leaders recon is to view terrain, avenues of approach and possibly get eyes on the objectives to confirm orders and plans.

Do not confuse it with other types of recons. Contact with the enemy is out of the question, unless you want all of your key leadres killed. Right?

There is no such thing as leaders recons in CM, because we can view ALL avenues of approach, and ALL objectives on the map.

so, whats the argument? Two types of scouting are conducted during game play, route recon (usually heavey) and information gathering recon (usually light). The only thing that can be gamey is information gathering recon with "junk forces".

As for as which is the best scouting doctrine in the world, why argue about it.

It's like argueing about what is the best way to scout in CM. The answer is, the one that works best for you.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tris,

I missed commenting on this before, but I feel it needs to be to futher point out that your criticism is misplaced:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, I notice that within a 24-hour period or so, after you'd locked the thread re politics, MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three different moderators locked up as many threads strated up to discuss current US political events that have NOTHING to do with anything Combat Mission or WWII related. They have no place on this BBS since it is totally off topic and, potentially, flamebait. The topic that Madmatt posted, that you appear to find somehow out of place, was not at all. You just don't know his "update" subjectline style. Check out the thread in question and you will see that it is totally on topic with a tonge in cheeck parody of the current political situation in the context of an update to Combat Mission HQ. I have no idea why you find this to be some sort of great evil...

Steve

[Guest Pillar]

Sorry, I was writing that while you wrote Steve. I'll respond to you and break my holy vow. One last post.

Let me defend myself one last time (this is REALLY getting tiring)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I said:

So ScoutPL, please stop telling everyone that anything short of your US influenced doctrine is "gamey" and do a little searching for the NTC debates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But his is *exactly* what ScoutPL has been doing implicitly. He hasn't come out and said "US Doctrine is the only realistic doctrine", but he *has* made that implication by labelling all other methodology with all sorts of unfriendly adjectives. Look at my very first post of this thread where I quote him.

You quote me as saying: "The Soviet style is far more careful with human life than the American style."

Then you say I didn't back myself up.

Actually Steve, the full quote is:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Soviet style is far more careful with human life than the American style. This is because they attempt to make contact with the smallest element, and then they do *NOT* throw any more men into a well known meatgrinder. They only put their men where they know it is safe(st). They conduct the attack through emphasis on maneuver where the US places emphasis on firepower. They prefer indirectness, the US prefers direct. They prefer to have the main body slip through like sand through a man's hands, the US prefers to pound those hands with a hammer. If anything, I'd say the Soviet doctrine has more 'finesse' and less 'brute force' than the American.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much.

[Guest Pillar]

Dervulf:

ScoutPL made that suggestion to me as well. I think it would be a fun game, but one would be mistaken to judge the merit of the doctrines based on our game.

If I beat ScoutPL, that may simply be attributable to my superior skills in general. Knowing a doctrine is one thing, being good at using it is another. A bad Soviet general can still loose against a good American one, even if his doctrine is superior. Skill and Experience come into play.

It is for this reason that I decline this idea, it would only further confuse the issues.

[DEF BUNGIS]

Ooooooh, such a hot topic.

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

Late night talk shows rule!

[Tris]

"MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about?"

Well apparently you didn't read the thread as it wasn't about politics but about my nightly CMHQ update. I was just using the ongoing spectacle as a backdrop.

I realize that, realized it at the time. But still, you took liberties and acknowledged as much yourself. End of story.

Look, I have no trouble with anything anyone wants to write on this board or another. I'm all for free speech. I just think it needs to be free all around, not selectively free.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tris,

Er... you really need to relax a bit. You are implying here, in no small way, that Matt somehow is applying a double standard. In no way shape or form did he do that. A parody of current events is in no way in the same boat as a direct political discussion on a games forum. I'm sorry to see you can't tell see the difference here.

Go back and look at the last 100 or so of his update subject lines and you will see a pattern.

As for censorship, there was none. Nor was an abuse of power exercised. I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that either of things things happened.

Pillar, I read the whole quote. But what you wrote was equally not backed up by anything. As I said, you are confusing differnet levels of recon. I thought ScoutPL addressed this pretty well (see Gulf War refferences).

Steve

[Guest Pillar]

It has come to my attention that some of what I've said is not specific Soviet doctrine.

Two things may be confused to readers of this thread in the future, which I'd like to clear up.

A) My view on Soviet respect for Human Life is not a positive one. I'd hate to live in Russia. They don't respect human life at all. However, I think the CP/RP recon doctrine saves lives.

I only refer to CP/RP in this discussion, and I refer to post-ww2 views. I am not an expert on Soviet tactics, and I make no claim to understand them beyond CP/RP.

[Hawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dervulf:

Might I make a friendly suggestion here?

One that would make EVERYONE happy.

I'm not the first to suggest this (cant remember who was first) but I think it bears repeating.

both Pillar and ScoutPL need to stop discussing the issue and settle it on the 3D field of honor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right!

Now, why don't everybody take one step back while the moderators locks this thread up (we can all see where it's heading, right?) and then we move on to the next topic!

Hawk

------------------

Our's is not to reason why, our's is but to do and die!

[Tris]

And now I am getting personally attacked as a moderator? How nice.

By whom have you been attacked recently? It was not I.

Please do a search on "locked" to see WHY we lock threads. It is not censorship, rather a very deliberate attempt to keep discussion from wandering off the topic too far.

Nice try, but no matter how you choose to spin it censorship it was and censorship it is.

Much of what's been written on these boards if "off topic" by any reasonable barometer, yet I notice only selective threads are locked. This is typical of censorship since censorship is always the vice of special interest. Yes, Steve, you represent special interest, no, Steve, that is not a dirty term; neither does it actually attack you.

You can do things the way you like on your BBSes, but we can do things the way we like on ours. I have been moderating this one for almost 2 years, so I think I can handle it just fine, thanks very kindly. 140,000 messages on this BBS clearly shows that we are doing more right than wrong at the very least.

You are correct insofar as this board is yours, you run it, etc. That does not make it right, though, it does not make it good or beneficial to anyone.

I would add this: I have much more experience in these matters than the two years you cite for yourself on this board, and furthermore I am rather senior to you in raw years of life judging from a picture on your site, taken recently, no doubt (correct me if I'm mistaken), so I think I am qualified to warmly invite you to dismount your high horse, smell the roses and listen to a lone voice of quiet reason: censorship is never a good deal.

And then into a nice personal attack on me, based on one post. Twice as nice:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that all there is? So where was the attack?

Uhmmmmm... were did I say that Pillar was wrong and that anything out of ScoutPL's mouth should be taking as the word of God? Nowhere. Quite the contrary, I wrote this:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try and not attack ScoutPL because he knows a lot more about recon that either you or I do. Question and debate him, that is fine, but please try and keep it civil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote more than that. The thrust of your remarks were directed toward Pillar, not ScoutPL, and on top of that you spoke down to Pillar, both in voice and spirit when you cited ScoutPL's qualifications in a more than little haughty manner with the clear implication that that should persuade Pillar to "know his place."

That was the thrust of that.

I am not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but I kindly ask that you do not bring it in here and challenge me to knock it off.

And we were just discussing service to our country over on the other thread re use of scouts for intelligence gathering. So let me spell it out for you: I didn't serve my country lightly and certainly not to put up "Love it or leave it!" baloney or those who would suppress free speech. No matter what their special interest. Now call me funny in that way if you choose, but there it is. If you haven't already, go serve for awhile yourself, then come back and tell me how it is with you. You might be surprised.

Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

Tris, I'd say thats pretty darn personall!

I'm not sure about Matt, but Steve has always been very liberal in his moderation on this board.

Much more so Than I would have if I were the moderator.

[Dervulf]

Pillar

I am well aware of the folly of subscribing to one doctrine or another based on this or any other "game". Especially in the context of only one battle. I am also aware that given the same situation, forces, doctrine and even the same map, successive battles would probably have vastly different outcomes.

I was only trying to play the diplomat(by suggesting you fight a battle ) by offering an alternative to the back and forth that was obviously going nowhere.

I also must confess to trying to satisfying my own curiosity as to the approach and execution of the battle by two learned commanders. (the running commentary thing)

But apparently it's not going to happen.

So be it.

Best of luck to you sir.

Respectfully yours,

Dervulf

[Tris]

Er... you really need to relax a bit. You are implying here, in no small way, that Matt somehow is applying a double standard. In no way shape or form did he do that. A parody of current events is in no way in the same boat as a direct political discussion on a games forum. I'm sorry to see you can't tell see the difference here.

Go back and look at the last 100 or so of his update subject lines and you will see a pattern.

As for censorship, there was none. Nor was an abuse of power exercised. I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that either of things things happened.

Pillar, I read the whole quote. But what you wrote was equally not backed up by anything. As I said, you are confusing differnet levels of recon. I thought ScoutPL addressed this pretty well (see Gulf War refferences).

Relax? The only issue discussed here so far that I've taken the least bit "seriously" is that of censorship. I always take that seriously and I couldn't care less who objects. Indeed, the more people object the harder I will press for free speech. It's that simple. And always was.

As for what Matt wrote and why he wrote it . . . none of that is relevant. My point is solely this: the other thread need not have closed. It was closed only for the reason you wished to have it closed, and that is censorship in any reasonable man's book.

I like Matt's style, I like his work. But then I like your work, too. Go back to it and let me run wild over here, will ya?

And quit denying censorship. Go look up the definition for yourself, Steve. You can't just make this stuff up as you go along in a group of schooled adults, it doesn't work that way. So sorry.

And finally back to Pillar: again, whether Pillar was right or ScoutPL was wrong . . . all of this begs the central question, which in this particular case, as I noted, was the way you talked down to Pillar with references to ScoutPL's superior in-field knowledge of tactics and whatnot. All of that's given, as far as I know, but it cuts no ice with the issue of debate, which is of its own special context and so operates off separate dynamics. Let that take care of itself, Steve. It always does with time. Trust me. Truth has that way about itself.

[Guest Pillar]

Dervulf,

Another key thing is that I have no intention, nor do I feel I am qualified, to debate with ScoutPL about what method is "best".. All I can do is give my opinion and be open to everyone elses.

My intent in this thread was simply to show that broad front recon tactics, which are practiced by a number of CM players, are not as "gamey" as ScoutPL has implied in other threads.

Least of all did I expect this to be a flamewar!

[Tris]

Three different moderators locked up as many threads strated up to discuss current US political events that have NOTHING to do with anything Combat Mission or WWII related. They have no place on this BBS since it is totally off topic and, potentially, flamebait. The topic that Madmatt posted, that you appear to find somehow out of place, was not at all. You just don't know his "update" subjectline style. Check out the thread in question and you will see that it is totally on topic with a tonge in cheeck parody of the current political situation in the context of an update to Combat Mission HQ. I have no idea why you find this to be some sort of great evil...

I understand all that, Steve. Your argument (should you not be aware--I have no way to ascertain same so please do not take this as an attack) amounts to this: "We do not practice censorship for no good reason, our motive is not selfish or malicious or even self-serving in the basest sense but rather for the good of all." This is, for lack of better description, the "in the face of clear and present danger" rationale for why censorship is good or necessary or perhaps not really even censorship at all but rather "something else," and while I admit to it as one of life's hard realities I find it more than a little hard to swallow based on my own life experience. It might interest you to know that our various Supreme Courts (as they have evolved through the years) have found this argument equally hard to swallow, at least in normal situations (for instance, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is the classic exceptional case).

[Vanir]

Tris:

You are correct that Steve locking up threads is censorship. So what? There are rules that everyone who posts here are expected to follow. Off topic threads are officially not allowed, but are sometimes let go if the moderators judge them to be harmless. Political threads almost always degenerate into flame wars so they are almost always locked.

This is a private BBS. BTS has every legal and moral right to moderate what is posted here. Censorship? Yes. Wrong? No. It is a common fallacy that all forms of censorship are morally wrong. If you want to "run wild" you're in the wrong place. There are plenty of other BBS's around that let anything go, and they are all a mess IMO.

Believe it or not, there are some people around here who think BTS is too liberal and should lock up threads more agressively. I don't agree with this, but it goes to show the range of opinions on this.

P.S. The kind of censorship you are talking about is Government censoreship. That is not what is going on here obviously.

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tris,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Much of what's been written on these boards if "off topic" by any reasonable barometer, yet I notice only selective threads are locked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. The world I live in is not one of black and white, but shades of gray. Some topics are more off topic than others, some are more harmless than others. If you wish us to run a BBS with a policy that locks up ALL off topic threads or none at all, that is your business. But I personally object to Free Speech Absolutists riding a high horse into this forum (yes, it is you that is riding high in the saddle on this one) and telling us about the great evils we are responsible for here.

Censorship is a loaded term, and you should know that very well. It is used when one wishes to brand someone as being incapable of debating truths and instead resorts to force to impose a narrow and indefensible viewpoint. So please do not pretend that you are not being judgmental, condescending, and at least a little insulting. Otherwise why bring it up at all?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I have a plenty thick skin. My problem is that I am smart enough to know what lies behind the words you post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>all of this begs the central question, which in this particular case, as I noted, was the way you talked down to Pillar with references to ScoutPL's superior in-field knowledge of tactics and whatnot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You read into it what you will. I wrote what I wrote as advice to Pillar that he needs to do a better job if he wants to debate someone who does this for a living. I make no pretentions that ScoutPL is infalible or should be beyond question, yet that is what you directly accused me of. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to debate your point of view any more than Pillar shouldn't be able to debate Scout's.

Steve

[Guest Madmatt]

Yes and freedom of speach is guaranteed under the United States Constitution which has ZERO relevance here on this forum, which is run by us in the way we feel is best.

Censorship at its worse would be to not allow the posts to exists in the first place. We don't keep people posting OT threads but we enforce the mandate of the Acceptable Use Policy which you agreed to when you register.

We do this in the best way possible and I would never attempt to assume that we do it with perfection. But this board is ours to run as we see fit and that we do.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tris,

This is getting old really fast, but here goes another one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve. Your argument (should you not be aware--I have no way to ascertain same so please do not take this as an attack) amounts to this: "We do not practice censorship for no good reason, our motive is not selfish or malicious or even self-serving in the basest sense but rather for the good of all." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I understand this perfectly well. But I also understand that this is made known up front and that you have the choice to not participate in this BBS if you object. Off topic posts, if harmless, are generally (but not always) left to fade away into obscurity without being locked up. But ones that are surly going to divert people's attention and energy away from discussing issues that are relevant to CM, WWII, or (like this thread) this BBS are shut down. We make this known up front and the vast majority of people here are quite thankfull for it. Otherwise, why come here instead of going to USELESSNET?

140,000 posts here in a year and a half clearly shows that people find value in this BBS. And I put it to you that it is our style of moderating that is the main reason for it.

Steve

Whoops... missed addressing this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It might interest you to know that our various Supreme Courts (as they have evolved through the years) have found this argument equally hard to swallow, at least in normal situations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the same courts have also upheld the right to regulate speech in private forums. So I am not sure what your point is. Heck, even in public ones too (try yelling "MOTHER F*CKER" in your local police department and see how fast you get fined, then try to go before a judge, call him an "as*hole, butt f*cker" and see how fast you go to jail. Then try to appeal and see how far you get. My money would not be on a quick release And I for one have NO problem with this.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Tris]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of what's been written on these boards if "off topic" by any reasonable barometer, yet I notice only selective threads are locked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct. The world I live in is not one of black and white, but shades of gray. Some topics are more off topic than others, some are more harmless than others. If you wish us to run a BBS with a policy that locks up ALL off topic threads or none at all, that is your business. But I personally object to Free Speech Absolutists riding a high horse into this forum (yes, it is you that is riding high in the saddle on this one) and telling us about the great evils we are responsible for here.

Fine. As I noted you have the right to do as you please, but it still boils down to censorship, pure and simple.

Also, I do not mind mind being labeled a "Free Speech Absolutist" in the least. Instead, I thank you for what I consider to be a compliment.

You are mistaken about my riding a high horse, though, I do like to think of myself as possessing the high moral ground.

Censorship is a loaded term, and you should know that very well.

It is a loaded term. a highly charged item. And after all our country has been through to get where it's at, why do you suppose this is? But highly charged or no, if you engage in censorship then you either own up to it and get on with your business or ignore those who point it out to you, because you're not gonna win many points through denial: censorship is just too obvious for that. It always sticks out like a sore thumb.

It is used when one wishes to brand someone as being incapable of debating truths and instead resorts to force to impose a narrow and indefensible viewpoint.

Not at all. Censorship is often used by remarkably able men. It is often used by men of moderate abilities, and used by those with lesser capacity as well. Who uses this device and what he happens to be does not define censorship. How could it?

So please do not pretend that you are not being judgmental, condescending, and at least a little insulting. Otherwise why bring it up at all?

I bring it up because I see it. I bring it up because I find censorship, in any form, to be a repugnant thing. I don't like censorship. I am anti censorship. I am, in fact, that Free Speech Absolutist you have labeled me to be. And I am proud of this, let me tell you.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I have a plenty thick skin. My problem is that I am smart enough to know what lies behind the words you post.

That isn't even clever, as far as I can tell. If you have something to say, Steve, say it. Innuendo will get you nowhere fast with an educated man. Another good lesson. And I will add that I do not resort to similar tactics when I hold discussions with others, no matter the subject. I have something to say, I say it, just as openly and directly as I can. I expect the same in kind.

So what is your message? What is this somethingorother that I mean to say or am "really" thinking behind all of these (clearly implied) veiled words which I've so insultingly "attacked" you with?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all of this begs the central question, which in this particular case, as I noted, was the way you talked down to Pillar with references to ScoutPL's superior in-field knowledge of tactics and whatnot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You read into it what you will. I wrote what I wrote as advice to Pillar that he needs to do a better job if he wants to debate someone who does this for a living.

That's funny. I've followed Pillar and ScoutPL for awhile now and it was my estimation that both parties had scored here and missed there. All in all I've found the debate to be of moderate interest and a fairly good read. You have ScoutPL, apparently, way ahead on points.

We seem to be watching different fights.

I make no pretentions that ScoutPL is infalible or should be beyond question, yet that is what you directly accused me of.

What? Please cite any relevant passage of mine which supports this claim of yours.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to debate your point of view any more than Pillar shouldn't be able to debate Scout's.

I seem to have missed that completely. Why would you think you cannot disagree with me, Steve? Have I asked you to go away with your opinions, have I locked any threads or screamed at anyone in frustration? Have I not bothered to respond to your replies to me, and at length? Am I not here again to politely respond to yours to me?

[Tris]

140,000 posts here in a year and a half clearly shows that people find value in this BBS. And I put it to you that it is our style of moderating that is the main reason for it.

Then I am satisfied to leave it there, Steve. Feel free to have a last word and I will take no exception.

As you say, this is going nowhere in particular and we've both had a chance to blow off steam or whatever this exercise was--I'm not sure, if you care to know. More to the point, I'm here because I want to be here, I like it, I love your game and all of that. For the rest of it . . . well, to each his own.

I'm outta here!

(backtomyownthreadwhereitspeaceful...headded)

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]