-- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > Note Curtis's inability to respond with reasoned argument > to my post, and his use of ad hominem as a substitute-- > exactly what he had just got done falsely accusing *me* > of doing. >
How would Mr. Wonderful respond...I know, guilty as charged Judy. You got me there, that is exactly what I was doing. > More later. You may have to go this thread alone from here on Judy because I am running out of ways to amuse myself. Chalk it up as another win in your "I'm gunna wear you down" strategy." > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped for lack of > > interest in pursuing it beyond making our points and realizing it was going > > nowhere. > > > > Judy: > > > > snip > > > 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: > > > > snip > > <What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of > > responding?> > > > > > > Because you wear me down Judy as you have here. We both make our points, > > disagree and then you continue to post as if answering your hostile > > assertions is endlessly entertaining. > > > > It is not. It is boring. And as I mentioned before, you are pissing away > > opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission to make me > > look bad. > > > > It is boring. No, you have become boring. I am not interested in your > > making a case that I am something different from your own Mr. Wonderful > > fantasy. It is a false impression you have created and endlessly try to > > make me buy into, as if this could even be possible. Both version of me are > > your own fantasy. > > > > This mission consumes you with an intensity that I find distasteful. You > > are an ill-wisher, a malevolent person toward me. You do not wish me well, > > you wish me ill. Your agenda is unfriendly. You are the sourest > > of...Goddam I wish I had not taken that off the table so quickly, now I am > > going to have to come up with something else...you are not nice Judy. A > > sand thrower in the sandbox of FFL. And because all the neighborhood cats > > use the park's sandbox for their litter, your thrown sand stinks. And the > > sand is boring...oh hell now I've gone too far and lost it again. OK here > > goes: > > > > I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee. Get thee behind me. > > > > (I've heard that works.) > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > >
