>>>>>>>>Brilliantly and succinctly stated. Bravo!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did I miss something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can you please show me where it's brilliant and succinctly stated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Q.E.D. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh?
>>>>
>>>>quod erat demonstrandum - "that which was to be demonstrated"
>>>>
>>>>in this case meaning I claimed your
>>>>
>>>>>>Can you please show me where it's brilliant and succinctly stated?
>>>>
>>>>was in itself the proof of the argument I was making.
>>>
>>>Which argument?
>>
>>You request that someone explain to your satisfaction what is basically an opinion or a matter of taste and therefore does not really have to be defended on demand - is an example of style that many find annoying. There is the feeling that no explanation will suffice and will only lead to another demand from you to interact in debating something that you can either accept or reject but in any case is ultimately a matter of preference.
>
>If an opinion or taste is negative for someone who's involved in the thread, then this person has every right to at least request for the arguments underlying that opinion. If someone reads along and has an opinion about the opponents, then that's fine. But if someone jumps in to support or derogate one of the opponents, then this person gets actually involved in the debate and should give the arguments also. A good/correct debater does not only give an opinion, but also provides the argumentation. That's not my style. It is THE style of the correct debate.

But first you have to determine if you are participating in a debate or the verbal equivalent of a bar-fight - including onlookers shouting encouragement or insults from the sidelines :-)