Invincible arguments

I think I may have encountered another of Richard C's invincible ideas.

I found a post on Colin's blog which referred to debates like the RB/RC debate as being of concern, (although the main focus was probably more formal issues like difficulty of publishing fringe ideas).

RB agreed and RC turned up and both parties began to engaging in a bit of "thread jacking" . Somewhat more so in the case of Richard C who justified it by saying that it was important to correct the record in order to promote truth seeking.

I pointed out in a post script that I found it a bit ironic considering the post topic.

Richard C proceeds to argue the point apparently directing his argument at me (he misunderstands but that is beside the point here). Now in normal conversation I'm probably obliged to give him some sort of response. But here I'm effectively defending the position that the resulting debate would be a bad thing.

Curiously, the position I was taking cannot be defended in that thread because to defend it is to breach the rules that I am arguing for. In general a cynic like myself could conclude that, like with politics, the person with arbitrary standards will always be at the disadvantage. I suposed I am prone to try to beg the question and think that we should have standards to correct that imbalance.

Anyway, nevermind - I guess Richard won that one.