why the hell do we even argue?

I get really irritated at those (usually) prolific correpondents here who have this proclavity to argue because they are full of so-called facts they have read, which contradict those facts coming from those with first hand experience, been eye witnesses or whatever.  If you have noticed I stopped correponding/arguing on certain subjects, it is often because I feel I've hit a brickwall of intransigence. I wish people would listen or read and have the good grace  to acknowledge somebody may know better. Whilst I can overwhelm with data both correct and less reliable, I'm more than willing to listen to those who are experienced and learn.  What we teach at university is to be somewhat cynical of what you read, even from textbooks and refereed journals, because inevitably there will be errors - and avoid the web as a source being too often of unproven and unrefereed information - and realise that those who speak from first hand knowledge usually know what they are talking about. I get do really get pissed at having non Brits telling about me about recent British history, and quoting non-British social historians(?) writing on unrefereed websites  and then writing selectively on a very complicated subjects. The problem is recognising and avoiding secondhand opinions  made into  facts.

We wouldn't have such senseless debates if Magma wasn't so obviously superior to every other band.