[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 19:31, said:

Okay, Nigel, I'll play. Show me how to word the comment so it has no "dismissive tone". That's one thing. The other is that you're certainly entitled to disagree, but you're still wrong.

When Blackshoe is contradicting me and labelling my opinion "insulting", I can't advise him on how to avoid a "dismissive tone".

I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals. But organisations (like the WBF, ACBL, and EBU, or large groups (like professionals, directors or law-makers) are legitimate targets for reasoned criticism in discussions of Bridge Law. What Blackshoe took as a slur on directors was intended as a criticism of the laws. I accept that I may be wrong. I agree with Blackshoe that we're free to differ.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2014-February-11, 18:30, said:

I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals. But organisations (like the WBF, ACBL, and EBU, or large groups (like professionals, directors or law-makers) are legitimate targets for reasoned criticism in discussions of Bridge Law. What Blackshoe took as a slur on directors was intended as a criticism of the laws.

Is "People who criticise the rules without having read them first" a large enough group to be a target for reasoned criticism?

[mycroft]

In Bridge? Isn't that 55%? with another 35% only not fitting into the category because they don't know enough about the game to criticize the rules?

Spoiler

What, cynical? Me?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-February-11, 18:30, said:

I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals.

Nobody attacked an individual here. If we can't disagree with each other, there's no point to these discussions.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-12, 11:14, said:

Nobody attacked an individual here. If we can't disagree with each other, there's no point to these discussions.

And sometimes even if we can disagree with each other, there's no point to the discussion.