Gadarene:
I’m wondering if you’re going to come back here and take back that rolleyes smiley (that you save for special occasions) and make nice nice after the dreadful insult you hurled at me through mistaking the ambiguous quality of my post.
If you don’t, I’ll send a giant spider to land on your head and suck out your brains.
;j
You truly are amazing, Scylla. I say that with all due respect to your abilities.
Let’s talk about equivocation, sophistry and accuracy. Then we’ll talk about sincerity. Possibly later I’ll have some brief comments on sarcasm and smartassery.
Equivocation
For a guy so educated about rhetoric and all that, you sure have trouble with logic terms. Over on that Zenster thread, you confused analogy with strawman (and with metaphor), and now you’re struggling with this. Your clue should’ve been my emphasis on the word “fact”, but I think you know that.
Here’s a link to the meaning of equivocation. (Paraphrase for those who don’t want to follow the link: Equivocation is using one definition of a word to contradict a statement or to construe intent in your favor when in fact a different definition was intended in the original statement.)
The word “fact” has several accepted usages, one of which is the scientific usage you’ve been asserting as an absolute. I’ve explained in great and careful detail how Stoid’s usage fits at least one standard for a factual assertion. But you’ve been careful too, haven’t you Scylla? You just haven’t been careful to be accurate (which we’ll discuss in a moment) or fair; in fact, you’ve been careful to avoid any recognition of the meanings of the word which would validate Stoid’s example. Your only answer is to claim righteous anger and tell me you’re “not going to bother wasting” the time it would take to address other meanings of the word. If only you’d not bothered wasting your time on that exhaustive analysis of the value judgements implied by the word “mangles.”
Which leads us to…
Sophistry
…because you’ve quite unashamedly applied a different standard of definition-setting to Stoid than you’ve allowed for yourself. And you’ve done it not only within the same argument, but often within the same post.
On the one hand, you tell us:
But next we find you telling us:
Well which is it, Scylla? Is it “a reasonable description”, or is it a “loaded term”? Is Stoid’s explicit clarification of her usage of a word less valid than your insistence that we only allow your definition of a different word? Can you not maintain sincerity even from one post to the next? (More on this later.)
Here’s more of your sophistry, this time with smoke and mirrors:
Well good for you, dude; we’re all so proud of your restraint. You decided not to switch your position from one assertion regarding Aristotle which Maeglin had refuted to another which was neither relevant to the OP nor sustainable as an appeal to authority, given that I’d already refuted that meaning as well. Your statement of what you didn’t do is an impressive looking non sequitur meant to contrast your own NOBLE behavior with Stoid’s alleged and nefarious revisionism. It is a meaningless rhetorical obfuscation.
Accuracy
Not subjective? Tell that to my friend, who, if he holds a pale green paint chip up to the autumn sky cannot tell the difference between the two colors. To him, they are both pale bleen in color. Under the Scylla Standard, the blueness of sky is not “true from all implied or stated perspectives” (since my implication is that the sky is blue for all) and is therefore not factual.
Damn! You’re wrong again. “Heavy”, as users of the American vernacular of the past half century should know, connotes great significance, importance or profundity. Gold has shaped the history of man in such a way that it is most absurd to deny its significance. (Wow, I see now why you enjoy equivocation so much; this is fun!)
Ah, but I am not! Under the Scylla Standard (we’ll call it SS for short), neither the color of the fruit nor any enjoyment to be had from its tasting are true “from all implied or stated perspectives”, and so cannot be definitively stated as fact. Sadly, the SS allows the apple to be factual, but universal assertions as to its aesthetic qualities are prohibited.
Sincerity
And here we are. I’ve noticed, sir, that you purport to be a big defender of sincerity. You certainly project the bluff and open persona of a straight-shootin’ no nonsense type o’ guy. It’s rather odd then that you’re still, five pages into this thread, battling over the semantic distinctions of two common English words.
I’m going to summarize your contentions in this thread just to review how we got to this pass.[ul][li]“Not only is debate a science, it practically is science.” Refuted by me, IzzyR, Gadarene and Maeglin.[]“Aristotle, who could be described as the ‘father of science’ thinks rhetoric is a science.” Refuted by Maeglin.[]“Debate is not about opinions regarding facts, it’s about determining facts through theory and testing.” Refuted by practically all participants.[]"‘Mangles’ is a debatable characterization of what Bush does." Admitted by practically all participants, but shown to be irrelevant to the OP by me, elucidator and Stoid, and invalidated as a criterion for factuality by Bricker. Also admitted to be a reasonable description by Scylla.[/ul][/li]Well, dang; I just can’t see what still needs to be hashed out here. Maybe if I go back to the OP and tick off the items of debate which haven’t been settled:[ul][li]“Debate is not a science.” Consensus in the thread supports this assertion.[]“Even the scientific topics we debate here are not pure science, in the sense that we can prove the absolute truth or falsity of a given idea.” Scylla confirms the impossibility (outside of pure mathematics) of establishing truth or falsity in his very first response to the OP.[]“Great Debates is IMHO with cites. We offer our facts, supported by cites, and then we debate our opinion of what the facts mean.” Consensus in the thread supports this assertion.[]“We should stop bashing each other merely for asserting an opinion, and limit our bashing to those opinions which are unsupported factually or logically, or which are asserted as indisputable truth.” Consensus supports this assertion; notably the detailed greivances against unsupported and intractable opinions offered by one Scylla, rhetorical scientist.[/ul][/li]And we have no unresolved issues covered by the OP.
So maybe it’s just your committment to the unadulterated rightness of the Scylla Standard that keeps you here. I don’t think so, but I’ll admit that could be the explanation.
But here’s an alternate explanation, supported by your blatant attempt to sandbag me into joining your Stoid evisceration party. Keep in mind this is merely my opinion regarding the meaning of your vehement and sustained position:
You don’t like Stoid and you don’t like to see any support for anything she believes. Your objections have little to do with the Original Post; if that were so they could’ve been dealt with within the first two pages. You are the self-appointed trashman, and your equivocation, sophistry and rhetorical judo in this thread have been for the sole purpose of opposition to someone you think of as garbage. And while you may sincerely oppose the Original Poster, your opposition to the Original Post has been anything but sincere.
It’s one thing to cling to an argument based on amphiboly and semantics out of ignorance, but you know exactly what you’re doing, don’t you Scylla?
Yep. And you get away with it mostly through force of will and clever verbiage. Most people can’t tolerate your judo. I’ve decided to tolerate you all over the mat, though, because nothing, nothing pisses me off like mean spirited sophistry. It’s nothing more than bullying, and I can’t leave that unchallenged when I see it used so egregiously.
But y’know, when I mentioned my inability to give up on people, you were not the person I meant, so I’m not gonna follow you around challenging you. But if you’re angry about the way this thread has gone, I suggest you think about sincerity during our future discussions.
And that aint sarcasm.
As I said earlier, I normally take my cues from my opponent, but in this case, I’m not gonna bother.
I’ll reply to what substance there is here, and ignore the rest.
That’s interesting. Every other time you linked to a definition, you went to dictionary.com. This time you didn’t go to the dictionary. I wonder why the change (not really.)
Your cite describes the “equivocation logical fallacy,” and is not a definition for “equivocation.”
Nice try, though.
It’s both a fairly reasonable description, and a loaded term. What it isn’t, is a fact.
The Scylla Standard? You’re joking, right? Blue is still blue whether you’re friend is color blind or not. He can use a spectrometer and confirm the wavelength of the light.
Being colorblind is neither an implied or stated perspective of blue, and regardless of your friend’s perceptions the color blue still hits the rods and cones of his eyes at 420-490 nanometers.
That’s a very poor rebuttal.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
“Delicious” implies a taster, as I stated outright, and as you quoted. That is the implied perspective.
Excellent. I’m glad to see your beginning to see the difference between opinion and fact. Next we’ll work on teaching you how to tie your shoes.
(I know I said I’d try to avoid returning your insulting tone, but you make it so easy.)
Sigh. So what about the rest of it? It’s not really debate, but angry generalization and mostly garbage. I’m not going to respond to it, but if you want to have any further Jerry Springer moments feel free and take them to the pit.
My rolleyes isn’t being withdrawn, in part because the following statement–
–is wonderfully representative of the kind of sophistry you claim to abjure. By implicitly declaring yourself the arbiter of what is and is not “substantial,” you’re able to set the bounds of debate in such a way as to only legitimate those comments of xeno’s for which you think you have a response. The nature of the message board is such that arguments can be selectively acknowledged–this allows debaters, until held accountable in that instance, to ignore any comment that might prove intractably troublesome to their position. Just because you don’t like what someone says (or the tone in which they say it) doesn’t mean that it automatically lacks substance. Nice rhetorical trick, though.
I must admit that as this thread has dragged on my attention to detail has flagged somewhat, but I am doubtful as to this opinion. Though I disagree with Scylla regarding the central point of the OP (opinion vs. fact), as mentioned, it did strike me that his mindset regarding this issue seems to be in synch with his position on Professionalism and Responsibility. These issues are not directly correlated, but the common denominator is a regard for people’s ability to think (in this thread) or act (in that one) in a cold, precise, machinelike manner. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagreed with him in that thread as well). So I think it is likely that he is sincere.
In general, it is very difficult for to fully grasp the underlying motivations that bias people’s opinions, both for others and for the people themselves.
Gadarene:
I’m sorry you feel that way. No trickery involved though. Nothing up my sleaves, nothing in my hat.
I really don’t want to credit generalized mudslinging with denial, and most of it really does belong in the pit, nor do I feel like wading through the vitriolic rant to sort out the substance.
I’ll tell you what though. Instead of doing the proxy thing, if you want to put what you think I need to respond to but didn’t into your own words and make an argument, ask a question or state an opinion for me, sans vitriol, I’ll be very happy to respond in kind.
I’d rather not get into a pissing contest though.
Does that sound reasonable?
(Sure, don’t retract the rolleyes. Just keep your eyes open for the giant spider.)
Izzy:
True, but attacking motivations is an easy and irresponsible way to avoid dealing with an argument.
Hey, my opinion regarding your motivations is just a theory. (And not coincidentally the ONLY part of my previous post that could be described as “mudslinging”. Nice evasion though.)
Since we appear to have reached the point where we’re simply going to deny the validity of each other’s arguments (and I feel like I’m battling the Black Knight — “Your arm’s off!” “No 't isn’t!”), I see no further business to attend here.
[/quote]
Nice OP, Stoid; it had potential.
**
You’re just pulling accusations out of your ass and playing games. I’m evading nothing. Make an accusation or ask a question like a grownup and I’ll be happy to address it. Go off on a half-assed tangential rant, and there’s nothing to debate.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since we appear to have reached the point where we’re simply going to deny the validity of each other’s arguments (and I feel like I’m battling the Black Knight — “Your arm’s off!” “No 't isn’t!”), I see no further business to attend here.
[/quote]
More games. I had the feeling you’d try this again the last time you pulled the old “I’m leaving, no I’m coming back gambit.” I was pleasantly surprised when it seemed you were willing to engage in considerate and substantive debate. That lasted about 3 posts, and you started with the sarcasm and mudslinging again just as it got interesting.
My opinion (since we’re trading theories on each other’s behavior, and turnabout is fair play,) is that the effort at maturity was unsustainable and it’s much more fun for you to sling mud and wail meaningfully than engage in civil discourse. Oh well.
Hopefully you’ll be as good as your word and stay lost this time around as a third coming of the prodigal would be to ridiculous to bear. Failing that, at least try to wait more than 3 posts before you jump back in so it doesn’t look so bad. 
I agree. Great thread. I had fun, learned a thing or two, and had the opportunity to refine some thinking. What more could you ask for?
OK, Scylla, you want to continue with this, that’s fine. I haven’t walked away, pal; I’ve just recognized that there’s nothing more to be argued regarding the OP. So (with the permission of the OP — implied by her silence), I’ll follow your hijack and discuss your favorite subject instead.
Before I get started though, I’d like to request that you respond substantively to what I say instead of plugging your ears and screaming “Hey, everyone; xeno’s bein’ mean to me!” You may keep your little Pit thread, and I trust you know where you can stick your accusations of “game playing.”
But since it would be naive of me to think, after this thread, that you’re self aware enough to critique your own arguments, let me give you a hand inserting them:
Recent Game Playing
I enjoyed those little responses to my last substantive post. (Well, I’ll call them responses, since they were posted subsequent to my comments; nothing else about them was actually responsive in any meaningful way.)
I especially enjoyed your comeback to my charge of equivocation:
I found this reply interesting on a variety of levels.
First, it intrigued me that a self-advertised expert on rhetoric, its history and its uses in debate, and a degreed BS’er to boot, would a) fail to understand that the charge of equivocation, when delivered in reference to debate tactics, necessarily invokes the equivocation fallacy and b) insinuate, despite his own free access to dictionary reference pages, that the “normal” definition for equivocation differs in some essential nature from the definition as used in logic.
Second, I appreciated the subtle humor involved in the response. Really, the irony of this is as delicious as a juicy apple (IMO, of course). You’ll have me provide dictionary citations for equivocation and equivocal, select the 1b or 2a definitions to counter my clear use of the 1a definitions, and attempt thereby to equivocally clear yourself of equivocation! I’ve always felt that you’re one of the prime humorists on this board, and this is a classic case.
I could go on and on with these examples of games, but I’ll save those for later posts if necessary. Let’s get to the real issue.
Your current hissy fit is about my treatment of you subsequent to my reentry into discussion with you. Here is your purported attempt to engage me in considerate and substantive debate. Here is my response. At this point, we appear to be setting acceptable criteria for advocacy of a position in debate. Seems to be a quite reasonable path in a debate regarding debating. The exchange proceeds along the following lines for six iterations (including the two posts cited above):
[/quote]
Scylla: Sure, we can never be totally objective as debate participants, but this should be our goal. The advocacy you suggest seems to lead to inflexibility and to automatic acceptance of all concurring points and automatic rejection of dissenting points, even though they may be stronger. If we are to accept and acknowledge the flaws in our position, as you advise, we must do the exact opposite of advocacy and give unusual consideration to opposing arguments while constantly questioning our own. Advocacy embraces a “closed door” approach.
xeno: I think you’re taking the word “advocate” to mean someone who lobbies singlemindedly for a position and therefore is not interested in changing their mind. When I use the term, I mean someone who argues a position from an informed and committed viewpoint. As an informed participant in debate, this type of advocate, when presented with new information, has no predisposed obligation to resist modification of their position. An impassioned advocate, rather than “closing the door” on dispute, attempts to shed light on their cause from their stated perspective. If light shed from an opposite perspective reveals flaws in the cause, the honest advocate must deal with those flaws.
Scylla: Yes, I mean the word “advocate” in the lobbyist sense. Consider that to have been my intention in all prior usages. This means that I have used it to describe one whose viewpoint is closed (as in “not open to significant change”), as in a case lawyer, a fanatic or a lobbyist. Conversely, an open viewpoint is held by one who is willing to change their position based on compelling arguments. Closed-viewpointers base their arguments on their closely held opinions. Open-viewpointers base their opinions on the most compelling arguments. Since the closed people are not willing to fulfill your stated expectations for reasonable debate (i.e. they won’t accept or acknowledge legitimate counterarguments), they have no value as GDers and don’t belong here.
xeno: I disagree. The presentation of closed viewpoints have a definite place in GD for their educational value and for the common tendency of this sort of witnessing to spark real debate among the more enlightened GDenizens.
Scylla: In theory, you’re right, but in practice it’s often hard to tell with the non-religious type of witnessing that that’s what it is. That type of witnessing is NOT sincere debate. Don’t you agree?
xeno: Well yes, I already said it was not sincere debate; the witnesser does not want to change his or her viewpoint. I also agree that such an intractable position should not, ideally, be presented as an earnest attempt at debate. That would be speciously deceptive.
Scylla: OK then, we’ve set the parameters of our agreement. Now it’s gonna get tough. If a closed viewpoint is presented insincerely, can we reasonably be expected to debate it sincerely?
xeno: Let me be careful here, since you think this is a tough question. Debate is merely the exchange of argument in support of opposing positions. So any proposition can be debated, whether the proposer is willing to be convinced by opposition or not. It’s not the ideal condition for reasoned debate, obviously, but sincere skepticism is only required from one of the parties in order for debate to be productive. Look at DDG’s ongoing debate with the Hawaiian remote-viewers. She’s cleaning their clocks, even though they’re inflexibly committed to their position, because she’s debating sincerely.
Scylla: I’ll say it differently: What reasonable expectations are there for one who is arguing against an insincere or closed viewpoint? F’rinstance, I argued against an anti-hunting OP not long ago and went 4 pages before I realized I was arguing against a closed viewpoint. I resolved then and there that straightforward debate against such an opponent is a waste of time. That type doesn’t deserve such consideration. The OP of this thread says “Let’s stop beating each other up for posting opinions.” I say not all opinions are created equal, and anyone who posts an unfounded and uninformed opinion deserves to get beaten up. I generally feel free to attack such opinions however I can, because such people don’t deserve the same courtesy and consideration as honest debaters. I don’t agree with the lowering of standards proposed by the OP.
xeno: I remember the hunting thread. I thought it was obvious from the first exchange that the OP was arguing from a closed viewpoint. So what? Debate and discussion ensued and much valid information was provided in opposition to the OP. Had I been undecided about my own viewpoint on hunting, I’d have made my mind up by the end of that thread. And BTW, the OP of this thread has stated the same objections to unfounded and uninformed opinions as you have. So, you don’t disagree with the OP; you’re just rephrasing it your own way. I also don’t see where you get the idea the OP proposed any lowering of standards. She used a fairly weak citation in her example to back up her factual assertion, but it wasn’t really offered as a debate on its own merits; merely as an example. As far as courtesy to an intractable opponent goes, I don’t see why their inability to debate sincerely affects your need to do so. It should be apparent that you’re not going to convince such a person to change; your efforts should remain straightforward and honest for two reasons; to remain true to your own understanding of honest debate, and to persuade onlookers to your way of thinking by contrast with your opponent’s tactics. Again, see DDG’s approach. Does this not make sense to you?
Scylla: Well, you still don’t understand what facts are, do you? I would contend that what makes a fact factual it is that is unambiguous, defined, objective, and true from all implied or stated perspectives. Therefore, when the OP asserts that Bush mangles the language, this is not factual because a Bush’s mistakes don’t literally “ruin” the language, b the word “mangles” implies a value judgement and therefore the assertion is not objective, c the interpretation of “mangles” is left to the reader so it’s therefore ambiguous, d it’s not true if we don’t agree with the value judgements implicit in the OP’s use of the word “mangles” and e it’s not true if we believe Bush is getting better in his language use because then we’d have to say he “mangled” the language in the past.
::sigh::
Scylla: Now, as far as your call for upfront debate tactics, you are persuasive, but even if we depart from straightforward tactics against the holder of a closed viewpoint, we can remain ethically sound. We can demonstrate that another viewpoint is superior on its own merits. We can show why the closed viewpoint is in error in various aspects through ruthless logic. If we show that the position of the OP is inflexible dogma, it’s best to refute it quickly and mercilessly. There are other ways to argue without relying on fact, or logical support. Those are the ways employed by the closed-viewpointers; denial, obfuscation, confusion and ad hominem. It doesn’t fight ignorance or represent a viewpoint but it wins debates. And winning the debate wins over more lurkers, because some of them don’t think logically either. I don’t think it disrespects lurkers or my own viewpoints to simply take out the garbage.
[/quote]
And here, I have to admit dear Scylla, I made a mistake out of inattention to your argument. I actually missed that part at the end of your post where you quietly admitted to using the tactics of denial, obfuscation and ad hominem against opponents who you feel merit such approaches. So what happened is that I interpreted your post much more charitably than you deserved, and proceeded under the false apprehension that you were still denying the use of the really dirty tricks. Since I very much wanted to bring your use of those tactics to light, and to show how you’ve been using them against reasonable OP’s and reasonable posters (by our agreed upon definition), I began to illustrate your uses of trickery within this thread.
I would’ve saved myself quite a bit of time had I been more attentive. Oh well. As it is, my illustrations of your use of fallacies against a reasonable OP and against reasoned argument, combined with your admission that you selectively and knowingly employ dirty tricks against opponents you feel are “garbage” should dispel any notion that your fallacies and distractions are anything but intentional.
[rhetorical question]And that primrose path you were leading me down in our “considerate and substantive” posts was going to end up where?[/rhetorical question]
Well, I’ll tell you. You wanted confirmation and approval for the use of those tactics against those posters you feel are inferior due to their refusal to see things your way. That’s the type of viewpoint you dislike, whether it’s closed, open or a revolving door with pink lettering.
That’s not sincere debate, fella; that’s sincere spite.
Xeno:
Let’s take a step back for a second if that’s ok.
Do you personally wish to continue this debate?
If you do, than I’d much prefer we do so politely and considerately, and with a mutual absence of accusations and histrionics.
If we can both go forward respectfully and consider the past water under the bridge, than I’m happy to continue. If one or the other of us is unwilling to make that commitment than no thanks.
Perhaps we could even symbolize our newfound cooperation with a new thread.
If we’re going to devolve again into the mutual condemnation society, it’s probably worth neither of our times to continue, and it probably belongs in the pit, and I really don’t have anything against you, so why bother?
Reading your above post it seems to be about half condemnation and half very careful reconstruction of our previous discussion.
The latter seems well worth the effort, while the former seems beneath both of our efforts.
So, if you’d like to continue I’ll have to ask you to solemnly swear to the following Bugs Bunny Oath
If we can discard the horribly mutilated carcass of the “What makes a fact” argument, I’m willing to move the debate regarding fair play, acceptable tactics and courtesy. I agree this would be best served by a new thread. If you don’t mind, I’d like to phrase the OP.
Unless specific examples arise in the new thread, I will confine my remarks to general condemnation of the intentional use of fallacies, misdirection, etc. Be aware, however, that I am very wary of those tactics at this point, and very distrustful of the intent of your suggestion. However, I agree to not express my reservations in the course of my arguments.
I suggest that we mention no specific threads or SDMB posters in our discussion, and instead refer to fictional examples of the type of argument we wish to discuss. Further, I suggest we do our best to delineate our major points and summarize our arguments at the end of each post, making sure to establish our position in simple terms. Any term which is critical to an argument needs to have its meaning explicitly provided.
If all of the above is agreeable, I’ll post a new thread later today.
Xeno:
That sounds agreeable, and I’ll be happy to participate as long as you include the Bugs Bunny oath in your OP to which I will also swear.
There may be a variation of the Bugs oath in the new thread. I’ll certainly stick to the spirit of it, but we aint starting that thread on a happy footing, merely a civil one. I see the value of silliness and fun, and I understand the use of humor to release tension between overly serious combatants, but the contention between us is not lighthearted. It cuts to the very heart of this forum.
Looney Toons moments are delightful, but we’re not taking our discussion to the Cartoon Network. (If anything, we’re switching from the History channel to Discovery.)
I’ll post a link here to the new thread when it goes up. The afternoons are much busier for me than the mornings, so I’ll probably post from home this evening.
There’s nothing I take so seriously that I’m unwilling to poke fun at it, and there’s nothing lighthearted about the substance of the Bugs Bunny Oath.
I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request, and I’ve certainly made a step towards concession by agreeing to your several suggestions including giving you the privilege of writing the OP. I’d hoped you might consider it a reasonable accomodation in turn.
I don’t share your asessment of the grimness of our dispute, either.
I would prefer to enter into a new debate with a spirit of goodwill, which is why I suggested we consider past hostilities as water under the bridge. That request also seems not to be accomodated by you.
That is of course, your choice, but there is a limit to how much flexibility you can expect from me when you are unwilling to reciprocate. And it is does not speak highly of our chances of producing a fruitful and constructive debate in any sense.
On another note, I have no desire to retest our forum moderators’ patience and discretion and see how far personal hostilities can be pushed under cover of debate.
Consider me disapointed.
At the very least though I’ll see what you write and take it from there.
So, let me get this straight.[list=1][li]You’re disappointed because I haven’t gone along with a patently unenforceable “oath”, arbitrarily structured [by you] for maximum silliness for some purpose not shown to be relevant to the discussion itself.You find inflexible my promises to not only proceed in a civil manner in the new thread but to eschew mention of any items from this thread, to keep my misgivings to myself and to make every effort to understand your arguments and allow you to fairly present them.[/list=1][/li]Consider me unimpressed with your “step towards concession.” You wanna participate in the new thread, participate. You don’t wanna, don’t. You wanna do your own, you know where the “new thread” button is.
I’ll be posting later on. You haven’t exactly inspired me to jump into it.
Forgive my impertinences.
I will thrust all reservations aside and stand in eager anticipation of basking in your forthcoming radiance of enlightenment.
That was only intended to be 10% sarcastic, and 90% humorous. I’m sure you’ll do an excellent job, and I have to admit I am eager to see what you come up with.
Oh you are so full of shit.
After you posted your rolleyes, I pretty much immediately posted that I wasn’t ignoring xeno’s post, just the sarcasm.
Within minutes after that I posted my reply I asked if you were going to recall your earlier accusation.
I saw that you were still around and posting in GD about an hour or so after that, so I think it’s a reasonably safe assumption that you’d seen my post.
If you were really being so objective with your moral pronouncements, you would have replied then and apologized or at least made nice about the misunderstanding instead of waiting around for a whole day to find the opportunity to create a lame excuse not to.
I’ve noticed that you seem to be a fly on the wall, contributing essentially nothing except to make the occasional moral pronouncement or egg on the debate.
When politely challenged to provide some substance (as I have recently done,) you seem to conveniently disappear.
So speak not to me of dishonest rhetorical trickery, thou pseudo-objective fly on the wall, for the giant brain sucking spider of justice is coming to suck your brains while you grin foolishly.
;j