Fair enough, it's straightforward. Thread is about housing your bike in style. See, eg. post #1. So I put up that photo as an extreme example of housing your Ducati in Style. You come back with a criticism that (which is no doubt true, but not the point) that it's a fake packing crate. I then give the background to the design of ncluding involving Tamburini etc. Now I think to most Ducatisti that this is very influential in being a most stylish way to house your Ducati (if you could afford the setup) given Tamburini's involvement. Your response was that you "didn't know what my words mean". And it goes downhill/off-track from there. My point is that once you had the info about the setup, your response was just a diversion instead of an answer on the merits. It's at that point you lose the debate. You could have responded that even with all the expense/Ducati involvement you thought it was rubbish for whatever reasons - that would be engaging in the debate further. I don'' like explaining "Arguing your case 101", but you have asked me to. You are also bloody well intelligent enough to know that if in a debate and your in a spot the go-to tactic is distraction . I also know this stuff inside out. That is why I responded simply with "sigh", because you know you're avoiding a debate on the merits, I know you are, but you then continued that stuff. So there you go. You asked for an explanation. I enjoy our debates but neither of us has to play dumb as a tactic. If you have got me on the evidence, and I can't discredit it, I'll acknowledge it (of cousre in some smart arse way) - debate on knowledge/evidence/skill is an art to be enjoyed win, lose or draw.
Ah, that's cleared that up then, but was the crate relevant to the thread therefore and I still don't know why you're angry about a fake crate But I loves ya anyhoo
Pffft ,,, he's alright - there's nothing new under the sun. In my job I've seen every debating trick in the book, fortunately there's usually a cranky beak on the bench to swiftly keep any advocate relevant to the point or be sat down and no longer heard. @Exige just needs to be pulled in line when he gets too carried away ... and to know who always stocks too much in the intellect armoury.
I'll keep an eye out for you, @Exige. If it looks like you are ever getting into difficulty, I'll let you know a tactic or two for shooting down lawyers. Like all experts, they are uniquely vulnerable to OCPs (Outside Context Problems) as their "skillset" is just learned - they are not after all naturally gifted. Not that you are likely to get into difficulties in this case. Aussies are merely aspirational Kiwis, they aren't the genuine article (like chiz).
Good synopsis, I’ll be fine after all, only El T can out gun me by turning off my account when I make him *sigh* code mad he is the judge the aspiring Kiwi mentions I think
Oh dear, yet again I have to help @Loz out with a caution against assumptions. Even if what has been said about lawyers were true (believe me lawyers get to see every facet of humanity from the most foul to the most praiseworthy, from the most gifted to the most impaired etc,), but even if that were not so, I didn't start "lawyering" until age 30. What did I do before then? What experience in what other fields do I possess? The assumption that because I am a lawyer I must have gone straight from school to Uni to Law is foolish ... and it stands corrected. Now the important thing is that you learn not to make such assumptions about any person in the future - lesson for the day ends.
It means you put your fingers in your ears and over your eyes when you type, quite a skill and one normally reserved for people with webbed hands
