Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:27:27 AMThe better question: How can you have a quality conversation when the opposing viewpoint reframes aggregate responses to benefit thier position? Pray Tell, show me where the "Jones Critics" dismissed his 'brilliance.' Indeed, DJ's had some wonderful games/movements. However, that's not the majority point. The point was, and still is, a lot of professional QBs have moments of brilliance, especially QBs with 60 starts. However, you chose to completely ignore that point, presumably because you don't have a good response; thus, you simply reframed the oppositions' position to give yourself the moral and intellectual high-ground.
Even now, instead of hearing what I said and making an effort to understand my point, you only listen to the extent needed to formulate some sort of rebuttal
I used to disagree with Ed in terms of debate. Ed opposed debate, while I thought it could be fun. I think the problem is what we saw as debate. I guess I saw the debate as discussing differing points of view, while I suspect Ed was seeing it as never listening to what the other side said and instead focusing all of one's efforts to try and prove that person wrong.
I spent considerable thought and effort trying to improve the quality of discourse, only to have those comments fall on deaf ears, and the issues I raised were just added to. I don't know what else I can do.
You win, whatever it is you think you are winning. I can't keep going around in circles like this.