I want to make sure that what I say is accurate so when someone throws out the "fact" that say global warming isn't really happening, I don't really want to respond unless I can cite something.

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do. I also employ the "eyeroll" and the "What are you on????" techniques.

After an election, when someone asks me what I think of the results and I'm not sure of their position, I've found that the 100% safe response is, "I'm so glad it's over."

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do. I also employ the "eyeroll" and the "What are you on????" techniques.

I've had to be very careful with my tendency to do this. Which goes directly back to Fry's point.

I can roll my eyes in exasperation or call bullshit without it meaning that you and all your ancestors are below average thinkers with recently shorn tails. And yet, it gets taken that way more often than not.

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do.

This is why I suck at debating. I don't want to call bullshit until I know exactly how it is bullshit and what the shitless information is.

"I'm so glad it's over."

Amen!

I ran into P at the park the next day. I avoided everyone, including him, because I was so fragile and tear-bursty. He went out of his way to intersect with me, put his arm around my shoulders and said in a remarkably warm voice. "I am so sorry. I know how much this meant to you." And that's all. No, 'better luck next time' or 'you'll come to see it is all for the best.' Or, the richly deserved truth...'your people let you down.'

Real class, that.

And, if he had avoided me, like I was doing him...our friendship...however, superficial it may be, might have suffered.

A recent example. In discussing the Kyoto treaty someone was saying that it called on the U.S. to make 90% of the carbon reductions called for in the treaty. Internally I was thinking "That can't be right", but I didn't know what the right information was so I didn't counter.

shitless information

I'm open to the possibility that there is no such thing. Which is convenient for me, I'll admit.

Is that the one that seems to be set during the crusades?

That's it. It looks very pretty, but I have absolutely no idea was the game is about.

The game is set in the Holy Land during the 3rd Crusade. The main character happens to be a member of the Hashshashin, an Islamic sect of assassins working out of Persia. This happens to be one of my favorite subjects in history--I love the history of the Crusades and of medieval Middle East.

There are some really good historical fantasy books written by Judith Tarr which feature the Hashshashin, which are pretty cool.

Yeah the problem is that part of a political argument is calling bullshit. I gather that in Europe that is accepted as part of *friendly* political debate.

I couldn't debate with Stephen Fry. We could be arguing the merits of blueberry vs. apple pie, and I'd just stare at him admiringly and exclaim, "My, your sentence construction is excellent! Tell me more about these apples, Mr. Fry. I shall eschew the blueberry forthwith."