No, I tried to stay out of that thread as much as possible. I think he was arguing with some of the same people who once hinted that he might be a CIA agent trying to start trouble and dissent in China. That kind of paranoid talk and ridiculous accusation would make it understandable if Sam didn't take arguments with the same people too seriously. I'm talking about evidence he provided back in the days of of Valerie Plame threads, and things of that nature. I'm not SF so I can't speak for him, but from what I've seen he (correctly) doesn't take a lot of what goes on here seriously, but when he does he's backed it up with evidence. I haven't seen every thread
I am sure you didn't read that thread otherwise you wouldn't have replied in this way. Let me share with you my personal experience. I joined the discussion of that thread to speak out against the biased media. And then he jumped on me right away and called me all kind of names. My experience with this person is very different from what you described in that post and that's why I responded to it. Is it clear enough now?
Sam is a smart guy, and anyone who reads this forum long enough knows that he enjoys being abrasive as much as TJ does.
I'm not going to criticize you for having an opinion of SF that is different than mine. I understand that is possible. I was merely giving my own impression of SF as a poster. He also gave me some advice about a trip to Thailand, and I'm someone who holds travel as almost sacred, so I respect his globe trekking, and find him very funny. I've seen people get upset by him, and often it's when taking him too seriously. But I'm not going to say that anyone doesn't have a right to hold a grudge, or feel insulted, or whatever their own experiences are. It isn't my place, I haven't read every exchange.
This would not be a fair contest. TJ is obviously far more intelligent than Sam, but there are many more people here on this board who tend to lean more toward Sam's political views, so Sam would probably win despite his shortcomings.
In spite of IQ and SAT and GRE tests, I don't think intelligence is something you can look at this way. People have different types of intelligence and it is displayed in different ways. Some people are better speakers, others are better writers, others are better artists, and others might be better thinkers. And... intelligence does not equal wisdom... cleverness does not necessarily equal intelligence.
andymoon is correct insofar as he has sought a similarly-formatted debate for years prior. He might have first dibs on the beatdown - I don't know if he has the fan following I do though, what with my extensive mainland robosupport and my personal german-korean jockrider.
I like anymoon's ideas to keep it unbiased, but I think both TJ and SamFisher should be obligated to sign off before they begin that they are satisfied with who is on that panel. Like picking a jury, I think either poster should have veto rights as to who judges them. Otherwise, no matter what the outcome, the loser can claim to have been the victim of unfair bias, and we should eliminate that possibility before any debate begins. EDIT: I suggest both guys make a list of posters they wouldn't mind judging them (20?). I think you'll be able to find at least 3 people on both lists that intersect. If you have more than 3, let the bbs vote which three to keep.
That is the reason I like the idea of having one judge provided by each participant and one chosen by people who I believe could (and would) choose an unbiased moderate. Clutch and Jeff know the board's members and I think they could choose someone who could set any bias aside for the third judge.
True, but to be completely honest, I wouldn't feel strongly enough to spend the kind of time I would devote to such a debate unless the topic were drug policy and I see the chances of t_j agreeing even to a sig bet on that kind of debate as incredibly remote. He knows he can't win that one.
If you really wanted to be fair about it you should do it like a jury. Have a pool of volunteers and then from that pool allow a certain amount of selections and vetos from each person. This would take longer but it would work better. Also if you really want to make it interesting make them argue oppostie of their own beliefs but still enforce the X-Day ban if they "lose" I think this would be really fun and lighten up the mood here.
SamFisher privately emailed me and requested his three jurors to be: 1) Rocketman95 2) Connor James 3) Zol
The funniest thing about this thread is the repeated suggestion that Clutch and Jeff would ever want anything to do with something like this.
I don't know if they WANT anything to do with it, but I trust that they would make the right decisions. I also believe that if asked, they would probably do it. I could definitely be wrong.
This was reported to the moderator because it was considered racial in nature. My personal opinion is that, while it probably doesn't reach over the line, it seems a little hypocritical to criticize others for bringing race into any thinly veiled insult (or not-so thinly veiled) while bringing up race yourself. If you want to call someone out, just say their name instead of listing their race. It's safer and potentially less offensive. As an aside, I'm trying to figure out who thought a thread pitting two posters against one another was a good thing.
danny317?? If ya ask me (and I know no one did) Fisher and The Conquistadork are two sides to the same coin. They are both capable of making cogent arguments for their positions when the urge strikes, but most of the time they seem to take pleasure in riling people up. some would call them trolls, but technically trolls are nothing but inflammatory while the two in question do actually participate in normal dialog from time to time. If they offend you, do as rhad pleads...ignore them. You are just playing into their hands when you react to them.
