Well, I just got back from reading this entire thread from the very first page.
I must say, it's a very interesting "study".
Some are very adamant about telling you WHY you should believe as they do...because they believe the propaganda of someone that has already told them to accept. WHY? I'm sure they won't be able to tell you unless they mouth the words of others, (see pundits cited).
Then we get to the HOW (tactics). The same ones use a lame practice called "baiting". They throw out an absurdity and if you "bite" or correct a misstatement, inaccuracies, misfacts, insults or twisting of words ensues. Gottcha again. Maybe there will even be some response to something you didn't even say!
Next comes the frustration caused by this...name calling and labeling.
Then it's back to "baiting".
The "tactic" cycle is quite obvious. Round and round we go.
Notice that I make little mention of the "arguements" put forth, or debating.
Simply put, some of the "arguements" are indefensible. When some try to support "their" views, they rely on words from another site's author to provide credence for them. If you don't agree, it's back to "baiting"...safe tactic that it is, unless someone with insight sees through the charade and calls it out.
Just like I did.
Now watch the tender nerves I touched respond. I can't wait.
DTS
|