--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > [I wrote:] > > > > You're on your own with that one. I'm having trouble finding > > > > a way to mitigate your tendency to start things and then not > > > > finish them, as with our most recent exchange. > > > > > > Whoa, wait a second. Are you talking to the guy who goes > > > further post by post on topics with you than ANYONE here? > > > > I'm talking to the guy who makes accusations he can't back > > up and mistakes he doesn't want to acknowledge, then claims > > he's lost interest or has other priorities and opts out. > > Judy I can't satisfy you on when you think discussions should > end. You usually have some final criticism as the last post. > I usually state my case to my satisfaction and then you want > to argue about it beyond my interest. The last post in most > topics is yours. I am OK with that, even though I often write > a response and after looking at it a day later realize I am > getting nowhere I want to be. So I mercy kill my response and > move on with other posts. I always stop when I have made my > case and realized that you are not seeing it my way and never > will. > > BTW, can you find the attempt at mind-reading in your paragraph?
If you mean "can't back up," that's an accusation, not mind-reading. The rest of it you've just got done acknowledging, so if it was mind-reading, it was right on target. > > > I participate as much as I can maintain interest and then > > > move on. Which is exactly what you do also. > > > > I don't leave stuff like the above dangling. I don't make > > accusations and then tell the other guy I just can't be > > bothered documenting them and it's up to him to disprove > > them. I always read responses to my posts, and if they > > catch me in a mistake, I acknowledge it. > > And you post out every week chasing the tail of this dragon. What "dragon"? Backing up accusations and acknowledging mistakes? No, that isn't what I post out doing, and you know it. > Sorry but I am not going to post that much to keep you > satisfied. Especially when you want me to run a little > online errand like finding posts where I believed you > lied on AMT. It isn't up to me to disprove your accusations, Curtis. Those are your errands, not mine. > I am frankly shocked that this is controversial and needs > to be proven to you. I genuinely don't remember your accusing me of lying. If you did, I most likely ignored it because it was so ludicrous, and you couldn't document it. I'm used to hostile debating opponents making that accusation when they're in a corner and out of ammunition. > We both thought the other was not being truthful back then. > Did this slip your mind? It hasn't slipped my mind that I thought you weren't being truthful back then. But I didn't renew that accusation. You did. > Why should it be up to me to prove that this is what I felt > back then to your satisfaction? Because you made the accusation. If you weren't willing to back it up, you shouldn't have made it. > I don't care what you believe about this and the posts are > online for you to sift through. Why don't you read every > single post from those years and if you can't find one of > me accusing you of being a liar, you can come back in > triumph and call me a liar about this? Because you made the accusation. If you weren't willing to back it up, you shouldn't have made it. And remember, this was in connection with Barry claiming it was "laughable" for me to say I don't lie. He wasn't referring to our alt.m.t exchanges; he wasn't even there for most of them. So it was gratuitous for you to bring it up. > But please stop with the shame spin putdowns tying to make > it seem as if your fixations are my responsibility. You chose to challenge my "fixation." That's what you're responsible for, only you decline to be accountable for it. > > As I say, you and I have very different ethical standards. > > Yeah, the old superiority putdown. Maybe you should make > that a sig line for your posts. You tried disapproval. No > go. Here you try to make is seem as though me not doing > what you want, running a little Internet errand that you > are too lazy to do yourself, is an ETHICAL lapse! You made the accusation. If you're not willing to back it up, you shouldn't have made it. It isn't up to me to disprove it, Curtis. That's just a basic ethical principle. You also claimed Lawson had given reasons for not reading Judith's book; I *did* check that out because the number of posts involved was small, and found no such reasons. And you claimed I had been inconsistent in dealing with Ravi and Lawson, which was just a big fat error on your part that you walked away from without acknowledging. You also claimed it was I who had gotten into the "wayback machine" when it was actually you who had done so. And many other slippery little tactics that I called you on. I don't care if you're not willing to acknowledge the difference between credibility and verifiability, which is what we were arguing about. I'm happy with the case I made, and your failure to address it tends, if anything, to validate it. But to leave accusations, especially of dishonesty, and gross errors of fact on the table just ain't compatible with what I've always understood to be the ethics of debate. Obviously YMV. You don't like my pointing that out, but I'm afraid you're going to have to live with it.
