| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > I fail to see how calling you on the logical equivalent "It is the US's
> > fault" vs. "It's not the US's fault" can be called nitpicking your exact
> > wording. Rather it's pointing out glaring inconsistency at a basic level.
>
> You are the king of obfuscation, Larry. You turn people's comments in every
> direction and ignore the core of the argument.
Patently untrue, the core of the argument has been addressed elsewhere in
the thread. I would say, rather, that you are the one obfuscating at present.
> > Just admit you slipped up and move on.
>
> Of course, I already said that in the post before this (which you've
> snipped). I'm not the wordmeister here, never have been or pretend I am. And
> I have no problem being incorrect or inaccurate about anything and I try to
> be the first to admit it.
Not trying hard enough, apparently.
> But I don't find it intellectually redeeming to
> stubbornly cling to the notion that Communism shall always be failed system
> in and of itself. That's something you cannot prove.
I've given my arguments elsewhere in the thread. I find them very
compelling. If you don't, there isn't much I can do about it, is there?
Horses can be lead to water but they cannot be made to drink.
That, by the way is not "stubbornly clinging" it's just being consistent.
> > OK, suppose I say your posts are sloppy and poorly worded and show signs of
> > a lack of critical thinking, as well as evidence that you don't grasp basic
> > concepts of logic, and an inability to admit you're wrong about things
> > unless you're directly shown to be wrong, and sometimes not even then.
>
> If you want to think that way, it's your own loss.
Read more closely... I am trying to give an example. "suppose I say" != "I say"
> > That's your behaviour, not your person, by the way, so I'm not calling you
> > names.
>
> You spelled "behavior" wrong. Does that mean you don't grasp the basic
> knowledge of American English spelling?
It is a foible of mine that I often use the british spelling for things.
Deliberately. Nice sidestep.
> > No, commenting on behaviour is commenting on the person. Unless you're
> > claiming my posts are bullheaded but I'm reasonable.
>
> Well, you haven't really been reasonable today, that's for sure. And you
> spelled "behavior" wrong again.
Obfuscation. You missed the point again.
> > Oh, and by the way, what exactly do you mean by "the complaint department is
> > now closed"? I wasn't aware you were the forum moderator.
>
> Oh yeah, my fault, you're supposed to be the forum moderator. Sorry, it
> won't happen again, Daddy.
Obfuscation. When I say *you* aren't the moderator it doesn't mean I am
saying that *I* am. But it's convenient for you to make that accusation
because it lets you sidestep the issue. Read more carefully, write more
carefully... that's my advice.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) We both have. (...) Lead me to water, then, and I'll drink. The well is dry if all your going to do is argue that Communism will always fail, no matter what, though you cannot possibly prove it in a million lifetimes. You're keen on telling (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) You are the king of obfuscation, Larry. You turn people's comments in every direction and ignore the core of the argument. (...) Of course, I already said that in the post before this (which you've snipped). I'm not the wordmeister here, never (...) (23 years ago, 29-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
