| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'm fairly happy with the accuracy of my characterization: you made a
> statement placing the entire blame for Cuba's woes here with the US instead
> of with their failed system
No, not entire blame. That's not what I think and I thought I made this
clear by my explanation and favor for the way Dave! restated it. America is
to blame for the sanctions and therefore it is not fair to call the Cuban
government, Communist or otherwise, as a failure in and of itself. If Cuba
were a nation as big as America with the manpower and resources to compete,
yet still struggled, then I would agree that their system doesn't work well.
> when challenged, you denied you did so and said
> that you had said something diametrically opposite
I denied MEANING it that way.
> and when presented with
> the evidence of your words you wiggled away by trying to shift the
> discussion to the faults of your accuser.
No, I returned the favor of picking at your wording rather than trying to
follow your general statement, and follow-ups no less. That went right over
your head since you're in denial about the way you treat people.
> This is standard tactics on your part(1) and it's why I have to view
> everything you say with a great deal of suspicion.
Or your obsessive and argumentative and jump on the chance to pester anyone
who disagrees with you.
> If you habitually misstate the truth,
Not on purpose, and I try correct myself when I make an error. You cannot
deny that.
> habitually change your statements of opinion,
Try "modify or restate" so that what I think and what I'm saying and what's
being understood are all congruent.
> and only
> admit you are factually wrong after great prodding,
There's never been a need to "prod," this is something you've decided to do
since you've pigeon-holed me. The truth is, you've been on the defensive
this whole time and shifted the argument away from your throwaway statements
regarding the eternal inner failings of Communism.
> why should anyone believe any assertion you make about anything?
If you habitually pounce on people and get out the belt like you're the
daddy of LUGNET, why should anyone post here.
> I'm done.
Good. Can we get back to the topic now?
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I'm fairly happy with the accuracy of my characterization: you made a statement placing the entire blame for Cuba's woes here with the US instead of with their failed system, when challenged, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
