--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Reply below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Reply below (to the comments addressed to me): > > > > > > ** > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Judy, there's no way that Rick doesn't hold "fairness, > > > > > honesty, and sincerity" as dearly as you. That is my > > > > > view of him, at least. It perplexes me that you have > > > > > such conviction that he is so shallow and hypocritical > > > > > and you believe that the record abundantly supports that > > > > > view. In my review it doesn't. > > > > > > > > I read over my post, and I was not able to find > > > > anything in it that suggested I believe "the record > > > > abundantly supports" that view. Could you point out > > > > to me where you found such a suggestion? > > > > May I conclude that your lack of response here > > means you were not, in fact, able to find any > > suggestion of the "conviction" you attributed to > > me in the post you were responding to?
I guess I can. <snip> > > I'm sure you won't take me up on it, but it would > > be really interesting to see how you would justify > > your "unreasonable" characterization with regard to > > each of the points I made about Rick's post. We > > could even do it privately if you preferred. > > > > But it's so much easier just to make the blanket > > characterization, isn't it? Pain in the neck to > > have to actually defend the specifics. Some > > might even see it as "compulsive." > > > **end** > > There is no desire on my part to engage in endless argument and > confrontation with you or anyone else. Right. As I said, you just want to be able to post a blanket judgment without having to defend it. > That appears to be your desire. Actually, I'm just interested in the basis on which you would dismiss my critique of Rick's post. > You asked me whether or not I considered your response > to Rick's posts as reasonable and I replied, "No." > However, your question doesn't seem sincere since apparently > only a "Yes" answer was acceptable to you. Wow. Is this the type of argument you use in court? Do you find that it tends to be successful? I'm not at all sure why inquiring as to whether someone agrees or disagrees with me should be considered "insincere." Why would only acceptance of disagreement qualify me as "sincere" in asking the question? Moreover, I just got done asking you to set out your disagreement in more detail so I could see how you arrived at your conclusion. > You also asked me if your attitude re Rick's postings was, in my > opinion, "rampant paranoia" on your part. I cannot diagnose any > mental illness or symptoms thereof you may have nor can I speculate > as to its etiology. Well, I can help you out here, I think. The term "paranoia," while referring to mental illness in its technical sense, is also often used in a more generic sense. From my dictionary: "a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others" I assumed--obviously erroneously--that you would realize I was using the term in this sense, not asking you to diagnose mental illness on my part. > Your words and behavior speak clearly enough without need > for me to characterize them. Ah, yes, the old "res ipsa loquitur" dodge. Sed quid in infernos dicet?
