--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Santosh Helekar continues to insist that he does not >"demonize" anyone, relying on dictionary definitions >to make his point. > > >In spite of the Iraq posts being discontinued, >Santosh Helekar continues his vicious ad hominem >attacks on me personally, this time for comments I >jokingly made to Tim de Mello about operating on feni >fumes. >
It is indeed amusing to watch the above poster go through the kind of defensive contortions he has gone through to explain his own behavior in this forum while casting my responses to his behavior in a negative light. He uses, not one, but two posts on two different threads to conduct his acrobatic defense and launch his quixotic counterattack against a perceived attack on himself. He seems to suggest that using the correct dictionary meaning of a word in the English language is somehow unusual or inappropriate. An obvious insult directed at a minimally aquainted opponent in debate is supposed to be a comment made jokingly. An opponent in debate who points out these insults is supposed to be the one who is resorting to ad hominem attacks and lacking in sense of humor. This unrelated issue is somehow supposed to be related to my fixation with the closed discussion on Iraq, and by implication I am supposed to be in violation of that embargo. What can I say? I must marvel at this type of mental gymnastics, and also at the audacity of anyone who accuses others of committing offenses that he himself has committed on a much greater scale. Forgive me for referring to earlier closed discussions, but I must be thankful that at least this time around I was not "jokingly" called a pig or a supporter of Saddam Hussein or of Islamic terrorists, or a member of the anti-liberation gang. Poor Herman has already been "jokingly" called a Dada in response to his very first post in a long while, which had the misfortune of being disagreeable to this poster. I know that there will be many more "joking comments" directed at me from this poster in a repeated series of posts to follow. So henceforth I will ignore them when they are directed at me, but point them out, off and on, when they are directed at others, when I feel the need to respond to the substance of any future posts from this poster. In my next post on this thread I will demonstrate to you why the article on Global Warming that was posted by this man in his last post was a striking example of vicious right-wing propaganda, and why I think his and that article�s main intention was to suggest that global warming was entirely or primarily a natural occurrence, devoid of any human involvement. Cheers, Santosh
