It's quite discouraging of debate or discussion to be told that the rebuttal for our points is not how sound it is, but how valid it is based on factual evidence.
Case in point. So, instead of debating, say.. my points about Sigalet's coaching habits of being a typecast 'yes-man' coach, I am not told not why his behavior or mannerisms should be interpreted as being this particular typecast. I am told that it's not good enough to even warrant a passing reply on the subject.
This is what pisses people off.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
|