Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
You are right in terms of intentions of the author of the question.
However, I still think the ONLY way to debunk those diversions is to answer the questions accurately, with all necessary argumentation as to why it is not relevant - without rising voice.
This is not for the sake of this particular author, but because of other spectators who may not know what is going on, but who will take sides, and it will be very likely the wrong one (David vs Goliath and so on...).
We may not be "official teachers" here (as Craig mentioned earlier) but this fact still does not absolve us from responsibility of allowing the in-accurate and plainly wrong ideas to spread. And, other spectators (who do not necessarily take part in discussion) will learn more from full answers (including myself).
My 2 cents...
|
I largely agree with you but if the author's motives are based on a personal agenda then the Science becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter how well you the explain the problem, if the author's objective is to discredit you rather than the Science, then there is no point in engaging in any form of discussion.
In this case all the author has to do is to regurgitate the same argument or introduce a totally irrelevant response.
Regards
Steven