"I would say that I’m not going to let down anyone who is willing to just
trust-me-for-no-apparent-reason. I would integrate lessons about deceit into
anything that I tell them, though. Anyone who just trusts me like this gets pretty
much the same evidence that the riffraff gets except that I would be more attentive.
And, further, I wouldn’t hold back any information from someone like this the way I
do with the riffraff. "
OK so on about the tenth reading, my brain is really beginning to hurt badly but I think Foreskin Boy is trying to say that he lies. Yeppers, I think he really is beginning to admit the truth here - integrating deceit into responses to people 'who trust him for no apparent reason" sounds like lying to this little piece of riff raff.
And god knows, he has been withholding info from me for weeks now! I still need to know if he is cut or not for my research. I also am wondering if he uses an aluminium hat while doing sex with the vacuum cleaner.
The riffraff among us have come to learn that Jack rarely, if ever, gives a straight answer to questions, and provides information and research that is biased, to say the least. He probably recognizes the fact that providing good answers to your questions would help educate and sway people to his way of thinking, but since he doesn’t have a tremendous wealth of statistically valid research, he can’t do the one thing that would help his argument.
The intelligentsia among us just stick around to insult him at this point. It’s more fun than watching a drunk man try to thread a needle.
I do not feel particularly distracted yet. I have simply been waiting for your response to my questions, which has not yet arrived. It is not difficult for me to ignore those other postings which do not concern me while waiting for your reply.
**
I can see how my attitude towards your theories would affect your desire to post a respone to my questions. What I do not see, however, is how my attitude towards your theories could possibly affect your answers to my questions.
Is this the case? Would your answers differ based on whether you were talking to a person who agreed with you, a person who disagreed with you, or an undecided person? If the answer to this question is no, one must conclude that my own opinions of your theories are for the purpose of this discussion irrelevant.
I asked serious questions concerning the methodology of your study. Does it seem as though these are intended to annoy? If you have specific objections to any of my questions, please tell me why you think they are not valid inquiries into your work.
There is a mechanism on this message board by which the moderators, if they feel it appropriate, can move a thread to a different forum. Were I to start a new thread with the same questions in GD, I would be circumventing this mechanism. That does seem to me a breach of protocol.
**
You have the option to answer my questions in whatever forum you choose. I will not be offended if you open a thread in another forum.
**
Have I, thus far, spoken in any way that you would percieve to be dishonest or unintelligent? I have an interest in your work and want to find out more. I wish it were possible to get a response from you without all this semantic haggling.
**
If you mean the point in the discussion, that point has not yet been reached. If you mean the point in our belief systems, I fail to see how that is relevant. Does my personal set of beliefs change the semantic meaning of the questions I asked? Does it change the inherent validity of your answers to my questions? Would the nature of my questions change if I were not a human being at all, but instead a highly advanced Perl script designed to extract methodological questions from message board dialogs?
**
I fail to see how a lesson about deciet is relevant to my original questions. However, whatever answers you care to provide, whether the riffraff version or the advanced version, would be greatly appreciated.
You may post whatever answers you feel comfortable with, and provide additional details as the discussion continues.
I am somewhat disappointed by your response. I do, however, have one more question for you. It is not entirely clear from the above text why you choose to not answer my questions. Given that your ultimate goal is the education of the public, it seems odd that you would pass up this oppurtunity.
Is the problem that your ego is hurt, owing to the forum in which I greviously placed my OP? If so, I must apologize to you, but surely you must realize that a bruised ego is of no consequence in an intellectual debate. Please move past this petty feeling and reply to my questions in the forum of your choice.
Is it because you do not believe my questions to be valid inquiries into your methodology? If so, which of my questions strike you as irrelevant, and why?
Or, are you refusing to answer my questions as some kind of political statement? If so, the message you are trying to promote is not particularly clear. How does not replying to my OP further the cause of the anti-circ movement?