Originally Posted by
Prof. Peabody 
It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.
I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a
personality flaw or a
personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a
tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.
At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually
enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a
monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.
Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.
While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply
personal and directed more at the other
poster, or the other
organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill
insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?
Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being
right, we all suffer.
), but it doesn't seem you learned from it. (Did you think I was banned? I didn't call anyone names, that was you, remember?...I should change my sig to "12 years and no bans"...could you?).
