[nwgirl]

So my Perry Mason comment was where it all went downhill? And that's snotty? What, are we in fourth grade here? Jeez, here I was thinking it was my Sherlock Holmes comment that really got it going.

We were arguing opinion to begin with. Then this comment was dropped ("no way she ran the marathon because no woman could run 26.2 miles without a bra...trust me") like TA DA! And it made me giggle to think that it must have seemed like such a Perry Mason moment and such irrefutable proof that she couldn't have run.

Then the whole thing degraded from there with what I consider huge leaps in logic people took to back up their opinion that she didn't run.

That's where it got hairy.

I don't care if we disagree that she ran. I start to care when people start saying things that flat out aren't true as back up of their positions. And when people do that, I honestly think there's something wrong with them. I'm sorry that I obviously cannot hide my contempt for illogical reasoning.

The little bit of debate I took in high school helped form the way I argue/discuss. To me, you put something out there and then you defend your points. And when someone offers up proof that refutes what you offered, you defend your points some more. That goes on until someone wins. (Because when you're talking fact, there usually is a winner, so to speak.) In this case, people dropped (what I thought) were facts as back up of their opinion and never refuted the facts I came up with, with anything more than "tee-hee I must be Sherlock Holmes" or "well...she agrees with me so that must mean I have some point." That makes no sense to me.

I can't get my head around the leap you have to make to say, much less actually believe, a statement like "no way she ran" because (insert whatever you want here). I'm no genius, but even I can figure out that in the history of time there has probably been more than one person to run without a bra...or wearing long pants...or whatever else was being thrown out there. So maybe saying something that's entirely possible is not possible, and expecting other people to not challange you is not the best way to back up an opinion.

It's not logical to me to argue proof with absolutely no proof or made up theories. That offends my sense of reasoning and logic. I'm sorry I don't hide that better.

I don't care if you believe she ran. I don't. I do care that people are ignoring/arguing fact with no back up. And I'm expected to say "oh, okay, we disagree then I guess?" Or, "this is a gossip site and I should not be expected to back up anything I say" because apparently gossip site=black hole of truth?

We can disagree on opinions, but when you start backing up your opinion with things you put out as "facts", you should be prepared for those facts to be challenged. If I misunderstood the "no way" comments, I apologize for that. I don't think I misunderstood them though. I think they can't be backed up and it's hard to admit that you can't back up what you say so you deflect attention elsewhere in the hope that no one will notice you talked out your ass.

That's all. If you think that's snotty or condescending, sorry. I actually thought the Perry Mason comment and the play on words of Sherlock Holmes/Katie Holmes was pretty funny. Apparently I'm alone in that.

And PB, thank you for coming in when you thought I was being ganged up on. I didn't feel that way, but honestly, I do appreciate that someone would stand up if they thought that's what was going on.