Or perhaps your debating style.

Mine is part sugar, part pepper, and a speck of fiber on the odd occasion.

In other words sometimes sarcasm then cajoling, maybe a challenge then a pontification or brag and then a sooth and hopefully sometimes even something of some trivial value.

I sometimes relate more personal thoughts than probably I should though and as well I sometimes allow my emotions to get control of the the Submit button.

I probably use too many archaic terms, words phrases and constructions and make up too many anachronistic situations - I guess I read too many old books.

But I do find my voice sounds better to me after however many posts.

I try to be a bit factual, bit fiction, bit joking, bit serious, bit sentimental, bit historical, bit concerned, bit hatefull (politicians & bankers), bit constructive, bit destructive.

Depends on the post subject, the poster, my mood etc. I think alot on here display some of the above, at times.

Above all, you have to have a sense of humour these days. Not much else to live for.

Talking about a joke - "President-elect Barack Obama is still looking for a new White House dog. The search is on. In fact, do you realize he has spent more time selecting a dog than John McCain did selecting a running mate?"

Gasmon

Dry and analytical with blunt characterizations.

laconic.

Lazy

Mostly interrogative, except when I get to my field of work, where I turn all afirmative and (too) full of certainties. Will sometimes defuse trolls, others just ignore them. After realising the problems associated with posting while tired or sleepy, I stopped doing it, therefore I post less, but with more substance.

Confrontational and analytic, suffused with metaphor and a healthy dose of sarcasm. Call it Hunter Thompson and Thomas Pynchon on steroids

Reverse Engineer

I see, I feel, I think, I write.

Sometimes in that order.

I'm looking for consistent logic and neutral language when in debate, which means I rarely debate, for where is it to be found?

I strive for efficiency and pragmatic-ism; by that I mean that I am not interested in dogmatics or defending nor attacking any predetermined fixed position.
... in debates I attempt to roll with the flow and incorporating what I learn into my position.

But sometimes I leave with a new position.

Debating and writing are, for me, not about winning or loosing but about learning the lay of the land. There are issues that I know that I have studied more than others and will attempt to promote my perception of that land. Some times I am totally ignorant and lurk that I may learn. Most of the time is spent in-between these two extremes.

The key to my thought is, I suppose, the pragmatic aspect. I care not for dogma but for news that I can use and in writing to be useful in the movement to clarity rather than being dogmatic.

I use every literary tool at my disposal to that end.

Sometimes I fall short in that goal... and I am ok with that as well.

IMHO, if you look for neutral language in debate, its not a debate at all, its just pablum. Consistent logic is a mark of any good debater, but on any topic that the debaters have emotional attachment to, they will certainly express those emotions through the prose. Some do this better than others, those who are not good at it resort to ad hominem arguments. Sometimes its hard to sort out this stuff of course, which is why you get variations in how its treated on the moderation level. Been round this block many times.

I have found though that you rarely debate MD, which I find disappointing because I think you have much to deliver through debate. Its a process oriented means of elucidating the truth, and its not always pleasant by any means. However, I know of no other means by which you can take two perspectives and resolve them out. You either bite it and chew it or you just read it, and just reading does not actively engage the topic with another.

Anyhow, I have my style, which is to confront and to analyse. Its annoying to be sure, but you gotta respect the fact I don't spit out pablum. I say what I think in no uncertain terms, devil take the hindmost. I piss people off regularly, here on this board I have been reprimanded any number of times for this aspect of my style. I always walk a tightrope. Really I restrain myself almost all the time because I truly find the people on the board fascinating and the topics discussed fascinating. I do not want to be kicked off the board. However, because I am so confrontational, I tend to get into trouble often. LOL.

I'm recording the COC on disk, to replay while I sleep so it is subliminally connected in my mind. With luck, this should keep me out of hot water for a post or two anyhow. LOL.

Reverse Engineer

That's good!

A true Libra style - it's usually pretty easy for me to understand the other person's point of view. I try to imagine the multiple responses the other person might have to what I write. Then I respond to them. Usually doesn't work more than any other method!

Confrontation NEVER works though.

Thanks Thrush.

I get a hard time because my moderating style is not so much Barney Fife as Andy (Sorry MD).

My style is generally sweetness and light, conflict resolution & Mr. Nice Guy. Sometimes not, but usually. I like irony, but not sarcasm. I had a very different approach a few years ago when I was new here. Back then I was much more likely to get into flame wars. Now I just let it ride and stay cool; unless it's jaysonraymondson. . .