Judy, here you begin by telling Xeno he's either dishonest or stupid. Then you go on to say TWICE that he's not stupid. Ergo, you are saying in a convoluted way that he's dishonest.
________________________________ From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:28 AM Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Surviving Whole Foods Xeno wrote: I did notice that you did not document a number of comments you made here. But this response simplifies things immensely because if this is true, anything I write to you here on FFL in the absence of my documentation here with regard to these points or my withdrawing my comments here and earlier in the thread, by your own words must stop you from responding if you do not wish to go back on your word. Very Robinish! You are either very dishonest or very stupid. You made accusations which, if they were true, you would be able to document. I made no such accusations. I don't think you're so stupid as not to have realized this. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of "philosophy or science or music" or any other neutral topic. And that's not even a tiny bit "Robinish," nor are you so stupid as to think it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> authfriend wrote: Xeno wrote: Authfriend wrote: 'For, what, the sixth time, what was the basis for your suspicion that what I had written was a lie?' You seem to be looking for a response from me of the form J says x but y is true. I am looking for an explanation of why you think this. But it is not a specific fact that makes me come to my conclusion. It is rather your pattern of deviousness OK, stop right there and document that I have a "pattern of deviousness," with examples. I am not devious, I am as straightforward as it gets, so it's going to be pretty difficult. and extended argumentation, which is an intuitive and subjective evaluation by which I come to this conclusion. You kind of remind me of the tenant portrayed by Michael Keaton the movie 'Pacific Heights'. You begin with the appearance of being on the level, and then.... Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments I have been known to start an argument. So have you, so have many others here. Since when is this a sign of "a pattern of deviousness"? or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Yeah, I don't do any of that. And I'm quite sure you know it. And in fact, I undoubtedly engage in some of the same when I am arguing with you; there does not seem to be much choice if one wants to continue the discussion. I do not like to sow discord, but it inevitably happens when we get into a discussion. Do I ever lie? The answer is yes. Even M recommended lying under certain circumstances. This world of illusion is rotten to the core. Do you ever lie? Of all the people currently on FFL, you accuse others of lying more than anyone. That is of course, my other reason for suspecting you of a lack of integrity. That's not a rational reason, of course. And I don't just accuse, I document my accusations. Certain people seem to manage to create the aura of integrity without insisting others prove their own or without asking others to apologise for doubting theirs. The late Senator Moynihan from New York comes to mind, a rarity in the political world. In my world, the personal aspect of life really cannot have integrity; only the whole of life has integrity, but that is not the integrity arrived at by conforming to a model of behaviour; it is simply it cannot be compared to anything else. Blablabla...more irrelevant bafflegab. I just find it disingenuous that you try to ride the moral high horse, from which you have fallen long ago Please give the specifics of this claim (including when this falling purportedly happened). you are rather lifting the tail of a dead one. I never really could ride a horse myself. As an individual body, there is always something corruptible when compared to some fictional higher standard. If you want to discuss philosophy or science or music, fine. But this issue of your alleged, self-promoted integrity and the incredible lack of it in others is not a viable subject. As I reminded Curtis when he tried this ploy, the only time I "promote my integrity" is when I'm accused of having a lack of it. It's not an uncommon response from people I've caught being dishonest, but never has anybody been able to make it stick. Rarely is an example even given, just the vague charge. Vaj used to do that a lot. Why don't we discuss Mozart? Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. You bit off a lot more than you can chew here. I did notice that you did not document a number of comments you made here. But this response simplifies things immensely because if this is true, anything I write to you here on FFL in the absence of my documentation here with regard to these points or my withdrawing my comments here and earlier in the thread, by your own words must stop you from responding if you do not wish to go back on your word. Very Robinish! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
