--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > Gonna give you just one example from your previous post > > (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of > > misreadings): > > But of course. The reader is left to assume that you have > lots of them. Terms like a "boatload" would be helpful n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion.
"Boatload" is good, especially when we add the new ones in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time, though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind. What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around to it and make good on my claim? In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood: <snip> > Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when > confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with > my POV which differs from yours, You do become a "hideous creature," though, in comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy. But I suspect you knew that. I will assume that this > mischaractorization is one a long history of ad hominem > characterizations meant to distract from your inability > to answer my responses with reasoned argument. And > because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you > believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding. > Does that really work for you, because from this end it > seems pretty transparently lame. If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The most recent example was our exchange immediately previous to this one, where you failed to respond to this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863 What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of responding? I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that, so why are you pretending otherwise? > > "The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense > > of proportion and fairness, and you too often become > > actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after > > another, as you just did above. You pull out your > > sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to > > discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either > > side." > > Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with > reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you > pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of > tricks The post quoted above was an example of the falsity of your assertion. The "ad hominem" came at the end, after I'd thoroughly fisked your previous post. It was you who couldn't respond with reasoned argument. > and hope I wont notice. Newsflash, I do. Hmm, I expected you to claim you'd somehow managed to miss the post. You've just neatly disposed of that potential excuse for not responding to it.
