Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
I don't really have a dog in this fight but given >90% of the people are not going to click the links and evaluate the articles for themselves, here's how discourse should work:
1: SD makes scientific claim. (or doesn't)
2: Gzesh disputes claim. (or doesn't)
3: SD provides article to back up claim. (or backs down)
4: Gzesh says article does not even mention subject of scientific claim. (or backs down)
5: SD says what page it mentions and supports claim. (or backs down)
6: Gzesh says why the given part of the artlcle doesn't support claim (or backs down)
etc.
So the discussion could go 1-2-3-4-stop, 1-2-3-4-5-stop or any other similar combination and people who aren't reading the links themselves can still come to a conclusion about how things are, by following the discussion.
The problem here is that instead of choosing one of the options from 5, SD is just going back to 3, so the discussion goes 1-2-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4 and it gets annoying as the normal rules of intelligent discourse are not being followed.
Yes, it's off-topic, but it would still be annoying even if it was in the "POLL: Does alcohol make men grow moobs?" thread in OOT.
Yes I take some blame for returning to 3 but he attacked me quite nastily, indeed he had already attacked me earlier in the thread.
In addition, it didn't make any sense for him, and one other poster to completely dismiss so many articles that pointed to the same conclusions.
It isn't a contentious scientific subject, the part that
can be debatable is *how much* drink (or a sustained drinking habit) is required to
very likely have a significant effect on testosterone/estrogen levels.
He/they didn't raise that, they simply spoke (posted) to me like I was a piece of dirt.