Over in another thread, CRArko provided a link to a book on arguing intelligently:

 

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/

 

I haven't read the book, only the summary provided there, but it seems in line with the published TD Comment Policy so I thought I would highlight it.  In that summary, there is: "let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent."  This is a sports website, not the Harvard Journal of Baseball, so it's expecting a bit much for everyone to adopt quite such a bloodless outlook when discussing our favorite team.  Still, it represents what I think to be a winning attitude for the long haul in a public setting.

 

As an aside, CRArko's reply to a Moderator's Note constituted a technical violation of TD's anti-threadjacking policy, specifically discussion of forum moderation in a baseball thread, but human nature being what it is, I have a hard time issuing him a formal warning for a post that was both complimentary and complementary.   But this (Questions About MinnCentric) is the right place for such discussions.

I'm going to raise an issue here because I don't want to start a new thread.

 

It would be very helpful if people say -- and identify -- what and who they mean when posting.  A great example is in the Terry Ryan interview thread:

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/15098-interesting-interview-with-terry-ryan/page-4

 

 

Lots of back and forth about Carlos Gomez (I assume):
 

From tobi0040:

I am confused.  I thought we got a center fielder with an .800+ OPS, on 24 HR and 40 SB last year...an outside shot at 30-30 this year.

 

From TheLeviathan:

Yeah, can you believe we got that for a guy that can't even get out of the Orioles farm system this year!  Wow!

 

Never once is Gomez identified.  Yes, people should know who is meant but you may have younger posters or people who are just having a "duh brain" day for whom it would be really helpful to identify the person described.

 

It is one of my "pet peeves" because I'm not sure it is "arguing intelligently" and I do think it hinders getting at the truth.  It also creates a "cliquishness" about being an insider.  (Yes, this example is pretty obvious but there are a lot of times when the reference is much more obscure and not just because the poster is testing everyone's knowledge of trivia.)

 

Don't assume that because you know what you're talking about, everyone else does.

Edited August 29, 201412 yr by JB_Iowa

I glow at the notion of being called a foolish idealist. But dream of electric sheep.