I would certainly have to agree with you, xeno. The question is how, or why do you respond to someone who, for a great majority of the time, is just going for a reaction.
It is a total waste of time, for which I am guilty. I agree that Barry was likely never upset when he posted. We were in two different universes. I still prefer mine, with all of its flaws and soft spots, but hopefully, a desire to interact honestly with people. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote I am in disagreement with xeno's assertion that he (Barry) was just too clever in his arguments such that no one could offer an effective rebuttal. I did not say Turq was too clever, I implied that those who could not provide an effective rebuttal could not find the right angle of attack or response. Generally if you are attacked and have an emotional response, your IQ drops because the fight or flight response tends to reallocate bodily resources away from the cerebral cortex. So the first thing one had to do to respond to Turq was not to get emotional about anything he said. You had to be neutral. That is just the first step, and that does not mean if you chill out, it will then work. It provides a platform from which to try various kinds of responses. To my mind, Turq was never upset when he posted, so he was in an optimum form to respond or not to respond what came back. If you have strong likes and dislikes when posting, that works against you when posting against Turq.
