--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't > address the plausibility of the scenario. > Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly > attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence, > after having decided--on the basis of no > evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the > truth when he said he was just speculating. > > Me: You missed my point completely.
No, Curtis, sorry. Your point was obvious. I was making a different point. I wasn't commenting on > his truth telling, I was disagreeing with him and his personal > attack on Rick instead of dealing with issues Rick has raised. Yes, Curtis, I know that's what you were doing. But the only way you could do that was to claim he wasn't telling the truth when he said he was speculating. You didn't understand > any of my previous response did you? Yes, Curtis. Sorry, your points were obvious. I was making a different point. Your point does not matter. The > speculation point is your own weird fixation that completely > missed the point of the conversation. No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. You just don't want to deal with it. > Judy: I was making a "meta" observation about > *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity > or lack thereof of the guy's analysis. > > ME: Yes you were trying hard to find something wrong with > what I said so you had to focus on an irrelevant point. I > have a pretty good idea why you are so invested in defending > a person who makes personal psychobabble comments about a > person personally instead of talking about the intellectual > points raised...ad hominem arguments are not valid. Is that > clear enough? (Says Curtis, indulging in ad hominem.) No, I wasn't defending the guy in my posts about your post. I pointed that out explicitly. I was criticizing you. > Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all > hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the > evidence while he often does exactly the > same thing he's criticizing. > > ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about > evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I > was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. It was directly relevant to *my* point. You claimed he was "just spinning" when he said he was speculating. But you had no evidence for that. Your whole analysis was based on the notion that he was attacking Rick, saying that this *was so* about Rick. He said explicitly that he *didn't know* if it was so. He was the one who suggested that even > though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he > still had them. You are the one who is making a big deal about > evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing > ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an > irrelevant point. No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. > The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you > is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting > discussion. Once again you have missed the main points of the > discussion No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. > while you > pursue your own inexplicable agenda. Good luck with that. Not at all inexplicable. I've explained it at least three times now. It's also a point I've made before. You just don't want to deal with it.
