Is it? I find it quite productive. I try to quote the sentances that I am responding to so it's clear what I disagree with and why. As for sources. I don't ask every time but if a matter is questionable it helps to have a source. Some are bad some are good most point to other sources for those inclinded to do more researche. Indeed especially when material is not quoted directly or the extract is small the possibility of a misunderstanding or takiing something out of context exist. That's why I try to include sources when I post something. It gives my opponents, supporters, and those just wishing to learn more a point of departure. If the overall goal is to learn more I don't see how that can be counter productive.minoru genda wrote:... the way you challenge people, (particularly Karl Heindenreich), quoting every single sentence, asking for a source everytime, etc. even if you get the facts right, it is many times counterproductive.
So do most other attitudes. If you wan to learn about a subject an opinion that cannot be supported has little value. Indeed answering in such a way is quite benefical to those that ask questions and I think encourages it. It does discourage those who just want to state an opinion and have it accepted as fact. Not a bad thing in my opinion.That attitude may have the opposite effect and make other people afraid to ask and and shy to participate in further discussions.
Well on a forum like this if you post something that is wrong or questionable you should expect it to be questions. I certainly expect to and many here are indeed quick to challenge me if I do.People should be able to participate in the forum without feeling they are taking a test being watched by "teacher lwd" who is keeping an eye of everything said and ready to put things straight.
When someone posts something that doesn't look reasonable and continues to stand by it when you think you've posted a pretty clear expanation of why they are wrong it's easy to wax somewhat sarcastic. You will note that that is a fairly common reaction both here and elsewhere. Was your initial post any better?User Mckenny is another example, with his obsession of Tiger tanks and trying to demonstrate at all cost his points of view no matter if he humiliates the "stupid ignorant on the other side".
Again even if he is right, the way he address people is not nice either.
I've started a few and made enough posts that it's fairly easy to question what I say. However one of the main points I've made in a lot of my posts is that people often jumpt to a conslusion when it's not warrented. If you for instance say "A" happened. It may have but there may also be evidence that it didn't or that "B" happened instead. Many times I challenge the certainty rather than the event. Indeed if someone is very certain that there is no alternative to something they should be able to support it shouldn't they?...How many threads have you guys started? All I can see is a series of quotes questioning what others say. Why don't you give others the chance to question what you say?
Karl has very passionate and firm beliefs in a number (most?)of areas. While I do find some of his habbits irritating I'm prety sure he finds me the same. Inspite of this I'm fairly sure we both respect and like each other. In trying to challenge those beliefs I've certainly learned a lot and in his defence of them and challengeing mine I've learned a lot as well. If you don't want to follow a thread that's certainly an option and in many cases may be the best one. However if you think someone is being unreasonable or objectionable consider a pm. Some things are better settled elsewhere than in a public forum but worth discussing.I don't like Mr. Heidenreich behaviour either. ....