Re: There's no reasoning with you Cecil....

[Noah Evans <ishbak@forest.STUDENT.cwru.edu>]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 09:30:39AM -0800, Ryan Lee wrote:

>I may namecall on Walker but at least I
> have some sound logic to backup what I say.  

The reason people take issue with your views is that you don't base
your arguments on objective criteria.

Most of your arguments against Walker's ability as a player amount to
amateur psychology about Walker's (lack of) intelligence and evil
intent.

If people disagree with you, you don't argue against their points you
argue against the individual. Since most of your arguments come from
subjective impressions(Walker's game is ugly, Walker is stupid, Walker
is evil) you argue against other people by questioning their
intelligence. Anyone who disagrees with you must have "never played
basketball" or "never seen a game".

Also (this is unfair but might be worth mentioning) your posts are
usually one long rambling paragraph. This makes your arguments seem
like a stream of consciousness diatribe.

If you want people to take your views seriously present your views in
a more rational way.

If you'd like to make subjective arguments about Walker's abilities,
develop those arguments rather than just presenting them as a one
sentence assertion(i.e. "Walker's game is ugly, if you watched a game
you'd know"). 

Noah