Best poster of 2007

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'd put Robin iand Son Goku in a separate league to both of them combined.

I rate posters on:
1. Ability to provide useful information.
2. Ability to make points succintly and quickly.
3. Ability not to resort to slagging typos
4. Ability to stick to logic and avoid rhetoric
5. Ability to have understanding (not changing) of opponents argument.
6. Ability not to personally insult opponent and to stick to logic.

Scofflaw and PDN's stlye are very similar. I thought they might be brothers at one stage. I would imagine they would both be top of the class in English. I think Robindch and Son Goku would take them in Maths though.

Tim I don't mean to insult you here but wouldn't you have to be even more skilled that those you describe in order to be able to judge their attributes correctly?

Well, to be fair, I have been known to correct Tim's typos, and clarify his arguments. I have also, unquestionably, been rude to him...and my maths is frequently Neanderthal (I get there eventually, but there's a lot of grunting and hitting things with sticks along the way).

As to the rest...

...basking in the warmth of Tim's disapproval,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

stevejazzx wrote: »

Tim I don't mean to insult you here but wouldn't you have to be even more skilled that those you describe in order to be able to judge their attributes correctly?

No inuslt. No, I think you make a reasonable judgement of those that are better than you. Ithink the difference here is what people go for.
Do people prefer a turn of phrase or succint information?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, to be fair, I have been known to correct Tim's typos, and clarify his arguments. I have also, unquestionably, been rude to him...and my maths is frequently Neanderthal (I get there eventually, but there's a lot of grunting and hitting things with sticks along the way).

As to the rest...

...basking in the warmth of Tim's disapproval,
Scofflaw

I said you have a good turn of phrase which is more of a compliant than I'd give most people who have been rude to me, and annoyingly take my arguments rearrange them and turn them into something slightly different.

As I have said before a more rational (and reverent) way if there is confusion over an argument would be to clarify it by question not assumption.

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No inuslt. No, I think you make a reasonable judgement of those that are better than you. Ithink the difference here is what people go for.
Do people prefer a turn of phrase or succint information?

But this is exactly what I don't understand Tim, how exactly is one supposed to judge such criteria? Are we grading this by our generalised ideas of posters and thier abilities? Or we taking a cross section of someones work, say Scofflaw for example, and then bringing that away with us and having it examined by a group of independently elected scholars (each one a specialist is in a differnet field) and then making a comparision to another posters work which is tested in the same way. The posts could be then graded on a set of crtieria agreed upon by the scholars with a league table set up for the posters. After each section of a posters work is examined it is awarded a certain amount of points in each category which will then comprise its overall score or percentage which is then recorded onto the league table. The league then runs for a specified time, a period long enough to ensure no anomalies can occur in the overall result.

Tim Robbins

stevejazzx wrote: »

But this is exactly what I don't understand Tim, how exactly is one supposed to judge such criteria? Are we grading this by our generalised ideas of posters and thier abilities? Or we taking a cross section of someones work, say Scofflaw for example, and then bringing that away with us and having it examined by a group of independently elected scholars (each one a specialist is in a differnet field) and then making a comparision to another posters work which is tested in the same way. The posts could be then graded on a set of crtieria agreed upon by the scholars with a league table set up for the posters. After each section of a posters work is examined it is awarded a certain amount of points in each category which will then comprise its overall score or percentage which is then recorded onto the league table. The league then runs for a specified time, a period long enough to ensure no anomalies can occur in the overall result.

Is your tongue in your cheek?
We are judging but we may not be correct.

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are judging but we may not be correct.

...I've no problem with voting process Tim and paying a little homage to this poster or that poster, it's when we start saying that someone has "fairly good english" but "they're no good at this or that aspect of things" that's when I think we're in truoble...I mean after all I'm far more intelligent than you and I would never dream of generalising someones abilities:)

Tim Robbins

stevejazzx wrote: »

...I've no problem with voting process Tim and paying a little homage to this poster or that poster, it's when we start saying that someone has "fairly good english" but "they're no good at this or that aspect of things" that's when I think we're in truoble...I mean after all I'm far more intelligent than you and I would never dream of generalising someones abilities:)

I don't get what you are saying. I am just giving the reasons for my conclusion.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I said you have a good turn of phrase which is more of a compliant than I'd give most people who have been rude to me, and annoyingly take my arguments rearrange them and turn them into something slightly different.

As I have said before a more rational (and reverent) way if there is confusion over an argument would be to clarify it by question not assumption.

There's rather a risk here that you are letting your personal dislike of me turn what started as a good-humoured thread into something much less pleasant. I'm sorry if any specific hopes you had for the poll have been dashed, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's rather a risk here that you are letting your personal dislike of me turn what started as a good-humoured thread into something much less pleasant. I'm sorry if any specific hopes you had for the poll have been dashed, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

"There's rather a risk" should just be "There's a risk".

2Scoops

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"There's rather a risk" should just be "There's a risk".

Why is that?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"There's rather a risk" should just be "There's a risk".

Oy vey! Here we go again. It's the "John Wine" affair all over again.

I've been carefully not posting responses to you so as not to upset you - but alas, the effort has proved wasted, because now you're upset that I'm (currently) ahead in your silly poll. You respond, as ever, by doing all the things you yourself list as poor form, without, apparently, a hint of insight. Grow up, Tim!

chidingly,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's the "John Wine" affair all over again.

That should just read "It's the 'John Wine' affair again."

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

That should just read "It's the 'John Wine' affair again."

Nah - the double quotes are there specifically because "John Wine" was a pseudo-pseudonym (if you see what I mean).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oy vey! Here we go again. It's the "John Wine" affair all over again.

I've been carefully not posting responses to you so as not to upset you - but alas, the effort has proved wasted, because now you're upset that I'm (currently) ahead in your silly poll. You respond, as ever, by doing all the things you yourself list as poor form, without, apparently, a hint of insight. Grow up, Tim!

chidingly,
Scofflaw

Oh come on, you get a harmless slag over your grammar. A simple humourous gesture prompted by your propensity for this trivial pedantry.

2Scoops

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh come on, you get a harmless slag over your grammar.

Where's the grammatical mistake? Did you wish it into existence?

What a useless poll, I'm not on it.

Tim Robbins

2Scoops wrote: »

Where's the grammatical mistake? Did you wish it into existence?

Yeah I must :-)

2Scoops

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah I must :-)

Yeah, I must have.

stevejazzx

2Scoops wrote: »

Yeah, I must have.

Actually it should've been "Yeah, I must have..." as it's an open ended reply.

5uspect

bluewolf wrote: »

What a useless poll, I'm not on it.

But you win best sig award.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote: »

weeping, thanking my manager, my mother, my wife, many friends and acquaintances, my old English teacher, the dog, the dog's friends......,
Scofflaw

Be careful, God is watching you:), though you, Wicknight and Robin do get my votes