Missing Lukester

[raja]

Re: Missing Lukester

Occasionally I get bored and wade into some of the sideshows just for fun, but I've learned it serves very little purpose and there are always a dozen "devil's advocates" waiting to pounce on almost anything anyone states here, no matter how benign.

A good way to learn stuff is through debate.
You say something, I disagree, you resond, and so forth.
But that doesn't happen a lot here . . . .

I'll post things that go against the official line, but there rarely is any intelligent discussion that follows.
And then, there's metalman, who thinks that everything I post is trolling. (I expect I'll get another Buthead and Beavis cartoon about this post.)
I want to hear others' opinions. I can learn when people point out how I'm wrong, and vice versa.
But I'm not getting that here, so itulip is at the end of my reading list, too.

Lukester made an attempt at reasoned debate. However, there is a point where it's best to stop and agree to disagree, and sometimes he couldn't do that. But when that happened I just stopped reading. Problem solved.

Like you, I check in to see if any of the people on here who are particularly knowledgeable in a certain field, like GRG55 or Lakedamonian for example, have anything to say.

I find c1ue's posts to be most interesting.

Those types are the real assets to Itulip for me, as EJ rarely posts anything anymore than I can understand.

I like reading EJ's stuff . . . I just disagree with it a lot.

There is a reson why itulip has gone downhill . . . and it's not that there is nothing to talk about.

[jk]

Re: Missing Lukester

if you disagree with a lot of ej's stuff, raja, it would be far more interesting if your posts discussed those disagreements instead of typographical errors.

[WDCRob]

Re: Missing Lukester

It's one thing to disagree with Eric - there's always room for that.

What got me about Luke and others isn't that they disagree with Eric, but that it was evident in their posting that they hadn't even read what he'd posted previously on the subject. (IIRC Luke wasn't a premium subscriber?)

And as JK points out, there are some shared assumptions here based on five years of EJ's posts and discussions about them. To arrive in year four (five, six, etc) and criticize a current article with a point that was hashed out, or which EJ addressed, two years ago just isn't very interesting to most of us even if the point remains open to debate.

[raja]

Re: Missing Lukester

if you disagree with a lot of ej's stuff, raja, it would be far more interesting if your posts discussed those disagreements instead of typographical errors.

Perhaps you missed EJ's post "Ka-Poom Theory Update Two – Part I: Bang or a whimper"? This was the same thread in which I criticized EJs spelling and contexual errors.

If you will look at my posts #41 and #56, you will see that I did discuss my disagreement with EJ.
Suprisingly, there were even a couple of good followups posts by other members.
Of course, there was also Metalman's contribution to the debate in his post #59 where he responded to a joke I made. I have copied Metalman's text and graphic below:

hookers... he he... he... he he he...