Well, I know I will get bashed for this, but this whole discussion is a clearcut example of a stupid discussion, a seriously stupid discussion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Judy: Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't > > address the plausibility of the scenario. > > Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly > > attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence, > > after having decided--on the basis of no > > evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the > > truth when he said he was just speculating. > > > > Me: You missed my point completely. > > No, Curtis, sorry. Your point was obvious. > I was making a different point. > > I wasn't commenting on > > his truth telling, I was disagreeing with him and his personal > > attack on Rick instead of dealing with issues Rick has raised. > > Yes, Curtis, I know that's what you were doing. > > But the only way you could do that was to claim > he wasn't telling the truth when he said he was > speculating. > > You didn't understand > > any of my previous response did you? > > Yes, Curtis. Sorry, your points were obvious. > I was making a different point. > > Your point does not matter. The > > speculation point is your own weird fixation that completely > > missed the point of the conversation. > > No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. > I was making a different point. > > You just don't want to deal with it. > > > Judy: I was making a "meta" observation about > > *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity > > or lack thereof of the guy's analysis. > > > > ME: Yes you were trying hard to find something wrong with > > what I said so you had to focus on an irrelevant point. I > > have a pretty good idea why you are so invested in defending > > a person who makes personal psychobabble comments about a > > person personally instead of talking about the intellectual > > points raised...ad hominem arguments are not valid. Is that > > clear enough? > > (Says Curtis, indulging in ad hominem.) > > No, I wasn't defending the guy in my posts > about your post. I pointed that out explicitly. > I was criticizing you. > > > Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all > > hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the > > evidence while he often does exactly the > > same thing he's criticizing. > > > > ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about > > evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I > > was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. > > It was directly relevant to *my* point. You claimed > he was "just spinning" when he said he was speculating. > But you had no evidence for that. Your whole analysis > was based on the notion that he was attacking Rick, > saying that this *was so* about Rick. He said explicitly > that he *didn't know* if it was so. > > He was the one who suggested that even > > though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he > > still had them. You are the one who is making a big deal about > > evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing > > ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an > > irrelevant point. > > No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. > I was making a different point. > > > The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you > > is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting > > discussion. Once again you have missed the main points of the > > discussion > > No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. > I was making a different point. > > > while you > > pursue your own inexplicable agenda. Good luck with that. > > Not at all inexplicable. I've explained it at least > three times now. It's also a point I've made before. > > You just don't want to deal with it. >
