I don't think Sebb has been under attack. Certainly I know I have tried my best to craft my replies such that it is the ideas and not the person. The one time I used "troll" and "Sebb" in the same sentence it was when I pointed out that if he continued to not address the PMCs responses and instead continued with just repeating his position then he was in danger of being interpreted, by some, as a troll.
We are all supposed to be grown ups here. I certainly hope that Sebb does not feel attacked by my responses... There are some aspects of what Sebb has been trying to articulate that I agree with, but it took Jason to restate before those aspects became clearer. In any case I still think we are not at the kernel of what is required. My aim has been to try and get Sebb (or others) to change their argument style from "I will restate my position until I win" to "I will engage with the debate and accept the possibility that there may be aspects if my position that are not as cast in stone as I previously thought". Jason's contribution has moved this debate forward, but I don't think the debate is concluded yet. - Stephen On Friday, 16 August 2013, Fred Cooke wrote: > > > Besides, I was just throwing some backup Sebb's way when he was under > attack... > > Yours incomprehensibly, > > Fred > > -- Sent from my phone
