Are you talking about Tribesman? What facts? What links? I don't recall Tribesman ever offering a link to support his argument. He simply acted like he was privy to some superior knowledge source that we weren't and we'd take it as "fact". I also never recall Tribesman offering an opinion. He'd create a thread with only an article link, but no commentary on his part. Then he'd wait for his usual victims to comment on the article and proceed to tear their opinion apart. But I don't recall him ever offering up his opinion first for someone else to counter. He could tear up his opponent's argument and the validity of their links, but he would not expose his opinion to attack nor provide links to support his "facts" so that his opponents could question the validity of his sources. I personally found his style counter productive as one could not effectively debate with him. Yet thread after thread, our patrons would line up to take shots at his "tar babies".
The part I always found most frustrating is that he seemed to know a lot and I felt like he could have done much to win over his opponents to his side of the argument. All he needed to do was to provide supporting links like most of his opponents did - I'm assuming here that his sources were indeed as superior as he led us to believe. Alas, he never took the time to properly educate us on the fallacy of our side. Because of this, to me he was nothing more than a real life Argument Clinic. 'Tis a shame.
Bookmarks