Re: That was[n't] science
Posted by Dale on Feb 09, 2002 at 10:50
Re: That was[n't] science (mara)i, personally do not think so, definitely not in my case. i choose to be honest without his expressions, sometimes even without his input.
And, from your postings I would have to agree. We disagree on much (and you are of course wrong :p ) but I do see and appreciate your honesty.
those who use ridicule are to be questioned as to why they can not think of a better means of retort.
Because, in this situation, ridicule was the best retort. Little Danny does not respond to logic or evidence. If I were to present some long dissertation on the essence of humor and why a knowledge of Doyle was not central to the humor, it would have gone completely over his head. He would have responded with just another of his ad hominem attacks rather than acknowledge that he was typing nonsense just to be having something to type. But you will notice that ridicule worked. Everyone seems to have got it. Even Little Danny was left speechless.
If the ridicule is off target or ineffective, then I would totally agree with you. But when you use ridicule to target a specific point and make it totally obvious that the ridicule is well deserved, then it can sometimes be the best retort.