01-04-2014, 03:17 AM
I just went through this whole thread.
Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.
I found myself switching sides several times.
Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.
I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.
Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?
The personal insults poison the well.
It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.
I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.
When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".
I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.
Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.
I found myself switching sides several times.
Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.
I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.
Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?
The personal insults poison the well.
It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.
I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.
When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".
I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.