On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:47:35 +1200, Kat Feete wrote:
>Rather than refute this, let me just give the structure of this
>debate from *my* side and see where we're not seeing eye to eye.
1) I make an offhand comment <snip> ask a question <snip> or make a remark
pretty clearly not meant to be taken seriously <snip>
2) You flame me, usually with propaganda about how great America is.
3) I respond to the flame, as reasonably as possible <snip> pointing out
flaws in your argument and what I consider major omissions.
4) You become a terms lawyer, <snip> and fail to respond to what I actually
say.
5) I try to clarify my original position.
6) You claim that I am then agreeing with you and demand an apology for the
things you said I said.
7) I don't apologize, but explain why. Since you've been saying all along
that I am fighting with no facts (true) I actually make an effort to dig
some up and use them to back up my arguements.
8) You fail to reply to any of this. Instead, you pull the flippant
comments I made out of context and flame me some more on them.
9) You send a long post about my bad posting habits which shows yourself as
the epitomy of reason and good and myself as a misguided child who can't be
trusted to respond maturely to a simple debate.
>Hmmm. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Any more
>neutral parties care to comment? <grin>
You mean that's *not* the normal debating style on the Internet? :)
Seriously though, since you asked, that's an interesting, and not *entirely*
unfair analysis of your arguments. In particular, whether meaning to or
not, he does talk down to you.
For the record, I'd like to say that in the great flaming liberal from NZ
vs. the staunch conservative from DC battle, I am Switzerland. I'm only
commenting because you asked. Should you two ever agree on anything, I am
concerned about the effects on the space-time continuum. :-D
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
