First - apologies to Craig and to everyone else who's been subjected
to reading this thread. Shiva and I have been having our own fun, but
in doing so we hijacked what ought to have been Craig's thread. We
should have been the ones to change subject lines, not Craig. In
failing to do so, we are guilty of wasting everyone's time.

For those with no interest whatsoever in our spirited hijinks, thank
you for reading the above apology. You may now move on to the next
message, secure in the knowledge that you aren't missing a single
thing in the remainder of this one.


But for those who have taken an interest, here's the big payoff... now
that it's all over, you're the judges. You don't have to really keep
score, take sides, declare a winner, or anything even remotely
pseudo-official. But you'll naturally form an opinion - it's human
nature. Keep it to yourself or share it, whatever you wish. (I
know we both deserve to be thoroughly blasted just for wasting your
time. Half the readers of this group have probably kill-filed us both
already.)

Also, let me point out that I haven't been abusing Shiva here. He
chose to initiate these festivities, so he volunteered for this, even
if he had no idea what he was walking into ...


On Tue, 13 May 2003 07:37:20 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

The other thing is--and this really is the impersonal part--I really,
really like to debate. Argue. Counter. It's fun, but it makes lots of
people really mad. Especially when I switch positions just for fun.

I enjoy debate too. I really, REALLY enjoy it ...

(Has that sinking feeling started to kick in yet?)

Frankly, your debate skills need work. You dropped the ball
repeatedly on basic facts. (Your initial case declared botrytis was a
bacterial infection when it is a fungus. You claimed the original
poster "exactly" said the blooms are rotting in the bud, when he said
nothing of the kind. Your prescribed cure for botrytis was a
fungicide that has been found to be ineffective against that
particular fungus). In debate, you can't afford to trip up on the
simple stuff, because that undermines your credibility for all of your
remaining arguments.

You failed to present evidence to support your positions. Anytime you
launch a negative case in debate (that is to say, whenever you set out
to debunk a proposed statement), you absolutely must present evidence
to support your argument against the opposing case. Your negative
case against rain damage was based on nothing more than "roses love
water" - woefully inadequate, and you failed to present any further
evidence in rebuttal, in spite of reaffirmation of the positive case.
That's handing the decision to the opposition on a silver platter.

Your positive case lacked evidence as well - "I had spots once and
they turned out to be botrytis" is perfectly fine if you're only
making a suggestion to the original poster, but if you choose to
engage in debate, you need to present much more support. (For
example, pics of botrytis blight that look even remotely like the
spots on Craig's photo would have helped). Note that you were
challenged on the existence of a debate, and you confirmed that debate
was indeed your intent. You had a major advantage in that you KNEW
you were instigating debate, but squandered it by failing to meet your
obligation to support your own arguments.

You also failed to address any of the evidence presented against your
positions, in either your positive or negative case. Not reading the
prior messages by other posters was a debate blunder, since you
presented your negative case against a post that began with "I agree
with Cass and Radika". That did more than give you a heads-up that
there were others that shared my opinion - it also indicated that my
case was being incorporated with theirs, so to succeed in forming a
negative case against me, you must also address any evidence they had
presented. They had indicated experience with rain damage. You
failed to address this. (I even brought that fact to your attention
- and still nothing was forthcoming to counter their statements. And
when Saki added her experience to the tally, you conceded the point,
surrendering your entire negative case. The key is that you could
have sidestepped this loss entirely - had you read the earlier posts
first, you would have had advance warning that "rain damage is
impossible" was an unwinnable position, and you could have selected a
different approach to the negative case.)

On your positive case, after you declared, "This is what botrytis
looks like" in reference to Craig's photo, Cass presented links to
many photos of actual botrytis blight on roses. These looked nothing
at all like the spots on Craig's blooms. (Failing to read that post
was your loss, because those pics posed a serious challenge to your
botrytis case. Since you had selected a heavy handed approach in
declaring Craig's pic to be botrytis, failure to answer that challenge
with pics of your own greatly magnify the damage to your case. Key -
even if it's fun to take a vicious jab, it's unwise because you then
cannot afford to lose that point under any circumstances.) For my
own contributions, my "origami" description of liquid saturation
simultaneously affecting many petals received no rebuttle even after
restatement, and my suggestion that the lack of other symptoms pointed
against botrytis was rewarded by a conceded point (which dealt a
crucial blow to your positive case).

Debate is an energizing, engaging, and educational activity when
executed properly and with due civility. And just a little attitude,
either in gamesmanship or in good-natured jest, can add to the fun
(my little poke at your affinity for Mills Magic Mix when I first
suggested Orthenex was inappropriate for botrytis is a prime example -
no offense was intended there, as I use a similar product myself) as
long as the required elements of debate (namely, evidence) are also
presented.

But I do expect you to extend to me the courtesy of basing your cases
on evidence rather than coming at me with mere bluster and
condescension. To engage in such patronization and call that debate
is suicidal to your future credibility, insulting to me, and an
offense against the art of debate, reducing it to nothing more than
the lame flame-war fodder that makes most internet groups such an
utter waste of time.

And yes, when I said it wasn't a debate, I lied. Mea culpa.
(heh heh)

I debated wholeheartedly. In my responses, I reaffirmed my own
positive case, even daring you to try to really debunk my evidence in
doing so (that was the bit about the invisible ink trick - I was
stunned to see no rebuttle at all on that one).

I launched my own negative case with delight - attacking both your
diagnosis of botrytis and your proposed solution. That should have
been the tip-off that the gloves were off and debate was on. (Until
then, I may just be defending myself, but once I start assailing your
case as well, I've definitely crossed the line and the game is
afoot.).

The "this is not a debate" statement was itself a debate trap- if you
agreed, you would be accepting culpability for abusive tones (which
were indeed shocking), but by disagreeing and declaring debate, you
were taking on full responsibility for failing to properly present
your cases. It was a low blow, but it did offer the opportunity to
bow out gracefully and cut your losses.

And I felt nothing but pure sadistic glee when I read your diatribe
about assuming people are smart enough to read the labels on whatever
they spray. Had we been in an organized debate with real judges, that
moment alone would have completely sealed the decision. (You
stressed that only idiots don't read the label of what they spray,
while at the same time both confirming that you use Orthonex
religiously AND defending your choice of Orthonex as a treatment
program for botrytis. The rebuttal was simple - Orthonex is not
indicated for botrytis. You should have known this fact from reading
the label. I pointed those parts out in my reply, but as a courtesy
I left out the glaringly obvious coup de grace - you missed that fact,
therefore you did not thoroughly read the label of a product that you
spray yourself, and thus by your own statements you have declared
yourself incompetent.)

So, yes, I did debate. And I played hardball. But I did stick to
the basic elements - presenting my evidence, countering your cases,
pressing all significant points of contention until winning
concession, and laying traps here and there. And I did remain
perfectly civil except in retort to your own offenses.

Hey, you were the one that wanted debate. Gotcha.! : P

And now, regardless of how we rate our own performances, the real
verdict is up to everyone else who has been watching.

For all of the "judges" that have read this far, all pertinent
messages should still be available on most news servers, so you may
verify all statements, assess and weigh all evidence presented by both
sides at your leisure... Or not, since the whole thing is just our
twisted idea of a good time and truly not worthy of your attention.


One last thing, then we can shake on "Case Closed."

Personally, I like you. For whatever it's worth.

Could be because I share your tastes in roses (fragrant reds RULE).
Or perhaps because we have the same off-kilter sense of humour. Maybe
because I did indeed engage you in debate, throwing in a few low blows
to match your own.

But it's probably because you recognize that I am a truly sick puppy.

And I like you too.

Now let's get to work and see if we can repair the damage we've done
to both of our reputations here. It won't be easy...

On Wed, 14 May 2003 11:32:00 GMT, torgo
wrote:

First - apologies to Craig and to everyone else who's been subjected
to reading this thread. Shiva and I have been having our own fun, but
in doing so we hijacked what ought to have been Craig's thread. We
should have been the ones to change subject lines, not Craig. In
failing to do so, we are guilty of wasting everyone's time.

For those with no interest whatsoever in our spirited hijinks, thank
you for reading the above apology. You may now move on to the next
message, secure in the knowledge that you aren't missing a single
thing in the remainder of this one.


But for those who have taken an interest, here's the big payoff... now
that it's all over, you're the judges. You don't have to really keep
score, take sides, declare a winner, or anything even remotely
pseudo-official. But you'll naturally form an opinion - it's human
nature. Keep it to yourself or share it, whatever you wish. (I
know we both deserve to be thoroughly blasted just for wasting your
time. Half the readers of this group have probably kill-filed us both
already.)

Also, let me point out that I haven't been abusing Shiva here. He
chose to initiate these festivities, so he volunteered for this, even
if he had no idea what he was walking into ...

Or *She* even.

On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:49:44 -0500, dave weil
wrote:



Or *She* even.



I tol you I was androgenous. :0)