reply to post by MemoryShock
Have you tried
this? It was many years ago, but I was impressed. Of course, that was before I
found single-malt...
To topic: I'm reluctant to discuss things like, for example, my opinion of SD's startlingly bold move in his opening statement, the lack of a
perspective view of the butterfly-ballot, or other particular issues of ongoing debates. Because, egotistically, I'd worry that those in the
debate would read, and think "hmm, yes, maybe I should mention that", and my comments would be an undue/unfair influence. Or I'd like to mention a
particularly strong point that was made, but then the other side would know (if they weren't already aware) that they might need to be strong on a
counter to that, because that's what people would notice.
It's a little bit of a conflict of interest, is all. For example, with regard to Semper's suggestion on the 'modcast', of ongoing debate
commentary. Do we really want to play to the audience (such as it is), blow by blow? That would reward the more demagogic, less complex arguments.
Not the best thing, imho.