I wasn't saying anything about long pips being easy or hard to learn. I was pursuing a different point.

I wanted to show that some of the arguments on this thread were irrational and that the conclusions they reached were not supported.

To show this I used an extreme example to see if people were reasoning or just holding to an absolute position. Specifically , it seemed like some argue that banning is never justified -- an absolute that is irrational.

To determine if the argument were due to language errors or logic errors, I suggested a pathologically extreme example -- an equipment advantage that was so absurd that no table tennis player would ever agree it was fair.

If a player even in the face of a pathological situation still believes that no matter how extreme an equipment advantage , that banning is unjustified, then that position is based on an absolute and not reason.

It makes no sense to argue with someone who obeys no logical rule and does not reason....they argue based on their faith in an absolute.... In this case the faith based argument goes something like:

Banning is always bad... Sharara's name is associated with banning...ergo Sharara is always bad....He must go.

As there is no real logic behind it, the conclusion is without merit.

Report Abuse