4 ms·

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point

by _djo_ 14y ago

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point is. Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining, but only in the right type of terrain with the right type of vegetation and when used in concert with other demining techniques. I didn't just imply that it my posts, I stated it outright when asked when and where mine rollers could be effective. But when used independently, as the Mine Kafon's video shows, mine rollers are useless for civilian demining and, because of the false sense of security they provide, could even be harmful. A minefield that people believe to be cleared, but isn't, is far more dangerous than a minefield that's demarcated and which most people know to avoid. So I'd amend your provided phrase and say: "Mine rollers used independently are useless for civilian demining and should not be seen as civilian mine clearance solutions." I'm not sure how much clearer I could be on this.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played. "Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining". So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they "are useless for civilian demining".
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Now you're being ridiculous. I'm disappointed. The context of those phrases, which you removed, made it clear enough that the first phrase referred to mine rolling as part of a system of complementary techniques while the second referred to it as a technique used on its own. By intentionally removing that context so as to attempt to prove the phrases contradictory, you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously. So I see no point in continuing this conversation.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously // The point was that you started by saying the thing was useless and persisted to try and defend that point despite acceding that similar devices are used and useful. There was nothing to debate, I simply called you on over-exaggeration and you refuse to accept it is. Fair enough you clearly know more about the domain in question. But the information you've given is the counterpoint to your initial claim. The reason I quoted without the full context was because that indicated your initial argument. The extended quote was how you adapted your argument against the claim that you were wrongly portraying the true position.

by _djo_ 14y ago

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played. "Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining". So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they "are useless for civilian demining".

_djo_ 14y ago
Now you're being ridiculous. I'm disappointed. The context of those phrases, which you removed, made it clear enough that the first phrase referred to mine rolling as part of a system of complementary techniques while the second referred to it as a technique used on its own. By intentionally removing that context so as to attempt to prove the phrases contradictory, you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously. So I see no point in continuing this conversation.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously // The point was that you started by saying the thing was useless and persisted to try and defend that point despite acceding that similar devices are used and useful. There was nothing to debate, I simply called you on over-exaggeration and you refuse to accept it is. Fair enough you clearly know more about the domain in question. But the information you've given is the counterpoint to your initial claim. The reason I quoted without the full context was because that indicated your initial argument. The extended quote was how you adapted your argument against the claim that you were wrongly portraying the true position.