Originally Posted by Maelochs

Actually, I think it is you who are confused. What Campag is doing is called 'being honest in a discussion." What most others do here (and elsewhere) is to pick a side and defend it no matter whether their arguments are rational, honest, accurate, or invented.

Campag admits that one factor of having a carbon frame is that if you are stupid about screwing something into it, you could damage it. Since as far as anyone can tell, that's a fact ... why would anyone Not admit it ... in an Honest discussion, where all parties are actually trying to get information to increase understanding on a topic.

On the other hand, all the talk about aluminum frames cracking in a few years or carbon frames asploding at every impact are trash, so Campag doesn't take them seriously. It doesn't mean he rejects the truth, just the opposite---he accepts the truth and rejects the untruth, regardless of whether people taking an "opposing" position state it or not.

Campag is not "agreeing with texiera and gweedo," he is accepting fact. He is disagreeing with people who make exaggerated or incorrect statements, and agreeing with correct statements.

Doing anything else would be "confused and defensive."

Just like trying to attack someone for being honest could be interpreted as "confused and defensive."

Like using a criminal-oriented term like "MO" to describe someone's action in making an emotional, not a rational, appeal to discredit the other party, regardless of whether what he says is correct and what you say is inaccurate. Just another cheap debating trick used by people who want to win an Internet argument more than they want to participate in an honest discussion.

Not that I would classify you among those folks.