That. What Zozma said. Thank you for your articulate and patient answer.
Erra, I apologize for the personal attack, for judging your responses from your starting tactics, and for venting my cumulative impatience with you and several other people all at you. I should not have made that post. I should maybe have made this one instead.
You ask why I didn't answer your specific points as though that were the only possible subject of discussion. At least you aren't tone-policing me for rudely calling out rudeness, for which thanks.
Your viewpoint is your own; you have a perfect right to it; the conversation would probably be interesting if I were willing to accept and engage with your charming approach to discussion. I'm not. (Some others here seem to be. More power to them.)
You have:
- replied to disagreement with aggression and insult
- taken your premises and analysis as absolutes
- caged the discussion to your conclusions and your statements of opinion-as-fact
- twisted responses and argued with your own version instead.
All of these points are classic tactics of dishonest argument. I'm in a glass house on the first point, granted. That doesn't make it any less true in your case.
There's been a steady stream of this kind of crap from several people here in the last month. I'm tired of it. I'm annoyed enough for other reasons that I suck at ignoring it. Pity me. Whatever. None of that has to mean anything to you; I expect it doesn't.
Which said:
- If you follow what I'm saying, and you really want a conversation, please knock it off.
- If you can't or don't want to follow, I expect I could quote specifics all day long and you would just shift the grounds and your argument to avoid acknowledging your behavior. If I'm doing you a disservice here I owe you an apology, but I doubt it. History suggests not.
- If you just don't give a damn, or this is how you amuse yourself, then you just carry right on. As though you needed my permission.
This is also didactic, btw. You asked. This is the best I can do. My bad.
