David Kane wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...
David Kane wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote...
You have supplied no rational reason why your
preference that chess not be a small oddball activity
should have more weight than the preferences of those
who disagree with you.
People who want chess small are not the ones
I'm writing for.
And people who want chess large but cannot explain why
are not the ones I'm writing for.
It has been explained, explicitly, very recently.
You have, indeed, explained why, but the explanation boils
down to "I expect the following things to happen", and you
have not offered a logical argument as to why anyone else
might find those things to be desirable (exception: the bit
about higher pay for top players; it's obvious why the top
players would desire that, unclear why you desire it).
By the way, not all personal preferences are equally
meaningful. For example, people who take the
position "NO CHANGES, NO MATTER WHAT!"
are expressing a preference that fundamentally
has nothing to do with chess whatsoever.
Good thing that nobody like that has posted to this thread,
then. Or are you attempting to take my actual position
(that I have given your suggested changes careful thought
and concluded that [a] they seek a goal that there is no
good reason to seek and [b] they are unlikely to achieve
that goal) and replace it with a straw man?
I have seen little to no evidence that you've given
anything careful thought.
Another ad hominem? Feel free to take a survey and see
how many here think that I have given your suggested
changes careful thought. Many people disagree with
me on many things, but very few of them think that I
don't give my positions careful thought.
If you can't understand my argument, your lack of
agreement isn't particularly meaningful.
*Another* ad hominem. Feel free to include in your
survey whether I understand your argument.
People have "opinions" about all sorts of things they
don't understand - quantum mechanics, the Najdorf
Sicilian, you name it.
And yet another ad hominem!
The above contains zero actual evidence.
It is an invalid ad hominem argument.
It was a response to the non-substantive
arguments you've been making throughout.
Glad to see that you admit to posting invalid
arguments. Your justification rests on the premise
that my arguments are non-substantive (something
which I deny, but again feel free to take a survey;
if they are most folks will agree with you.) Upon
that shaky premise you apply the ad hominem tu quoque
fallacy, claiming that two wrongs make a right and
that it's OK for you to present invalid arguments
just because (you claim) I did.
(tic-tac-toe, NFL rules etc.) This is typical
behavior of people faced with evidence that
is not comfortable to them.
No. Those were valid examples refuting your assertions.
For example, you asserted that more popularity equals
more respect. WWE Wrestling is far more popular that
Olympic wrestling. WWE Wrestling is *not* more respected
than Olympic wrestling. Thus your assertion is refuted
by a valid counterexample. Perhaps you should consider
the possibility that it is *you* who cannot understand
*my* argument. Have you ever taken a class or read a book
on critical thinking? Do you understand what a logical
fallacy is and why logical fallacies are invalid arguments?
The simple fact is that you've provided no
insight into the high draw rate of GMs, the
impact of that on the game, etc.
Feel free to take that survey.
Your "just because" defense
Straw man fallacy. I never made such an argument.
conveys very little beyond your stated satisfaction
with something you haven't thought much about.
Ad hominem fallacy. You are engaging in personal attacks
because you have no actual evidence or valid arguments.
I'm sure there were people in ice skating
who behaved identically but it didn't stop
the sport from evolving into something
better and more successful.
Red herring fallacy. Ice skating never made a rules
change to reduce the number of draws.
Also, you have your facts wrong, and badly so. See
[
http://www.skatetoday.com/articles0506/040506_1.htm ].
Ice skating has experienced a marked decline in popularity
in recent years, so much so that the United States Figure
Skating Association lost its long-standing television
contract with ABC because of poor ratings. Then, over at
NBC, the prime-time telecast of the U.S. championships
dropped from double digits into the 4.0 range, and the
USFSA, which was getting $12 million a year from NBC,
had to settle for a profit-sharing agreement with no
rights fee in its new contract.
Meanwhile, International Skating Union President Ottavio
Cinquanta says that he will give away television rights
if necessary to guarantee that U.S. viewers can watch
the 2009 Los Angeles World Figure Skating Championships.
Compare that with the $22 million a year he got from ABC
for the five-year deal that ended in 2004 and the $5
million a year he got from ESPN for the five-year deal
that ends in 2009.
During the mid-1990s, the Champions tour played more
than 70 major cities a year, plus a winter tour in smaller
cities. In 2006 it was 56 cities. In 2007, 23. And now
the 2008 tour has been canceled because of declining
attendance.
A far cry from the days when Sonja Henie was one of
the highest paid movie stars in Hollywood, starring
and skating in fifteen hit films.
The good news is that there is a new skating film out
that stars Scott Hamilton, Nancy Kerrigan, Dorothy Hamill,
Peggy Fleming, Brian Boitano and Sasha Cohen, and it's a
big hit. The bad news is that the movie is _Blades of
Glory_ starring Will Ferrell and Jon Heder.
I am looking forward to your next personal attack, which
I predict will be especially nasty because you were wrong
about the popularity of ice skating. Having been on USENET
for many years, I find such antics to be interesting, and
the escalation that follows when I reveal that my reaction
to flamers is detached bemusement to be reasonably amusing.
--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/