bomba <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> Jonesy wrote:
>
> >><I'll just snip the rest because this is the important bit>
> >
> >
> > Uhh, no. The reasoning is the important bit. Ignoring it is easy if you have a point to make, I
> > suppose...
>
> Actually, ignoring it was easier because I wanted to go to bed...
Ahhhh! Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to sloth.
> > Since you are loathe to state your opinion openly, I am going to have to ASSume that you find me
> > a sociopath on par with Dave for merely engaging him in his idiotic arguments. Of course, your
> > engagement with him in this thread suggests...?
>
> It suggests that I took great offence to something he wrote.
OK, then we are discussing a matter of degree. Usually, I am merely annoyed by what he says.
> It happens rarely, but I'll pipe up when I think someone has crossed the line.
And my threshold is lower than yours. Fair enough?
> > Worse, if arguing *with* Dave is stupid and childish, arguing *about* Dave must be...?
>
> Foolish? Anyway, I can't see that this constitutes an argument - you haven't called me
> anything yet
Dammit, I knew I forgot something! I cannot seem to come up with anything fitting right off the top
of my head - [insert namecalling here.]
OK, *now* it's an argument!
Seriously now: I think this may be a bit of semantics at work. While posting in response to Dave is
a total waste of time, posting in a discussion about Dave can certainly be no better.
> And to set your mind at rest here's a full reply:
>
> > 1.) Do you think I revel in childish arguments?
>
> Yes.
That is where you are mistaken. While I do find some small (and I do mean small) entertainment in
replying to Dave, Scotty-dog, and the Enviro-nut, it's merely low-brow entertainment. Nothing more,
and certainly there is no "revelling" on my part. More like "throw-away jabs."
> > While I'll engage in a flamefest every now and again for amusement,
>
> Assuming your first sentence is meant to be some sort of protestation to my comment, following it
> up in the next sentence with an admission of such (albeit reworded) is a nice contradiction.
Hardly. Sometimes I watch the television for no other purpose than to empty my brain of conscious
thought. That doesn't mean for a moment that I am glued to the "entertainment" currently shooting
down the barrel of the electron gun.
I do not accept your black-and-white position on the issue.
> > I would classify my participation in a.m-b as mostly level-headed discussion. Mostly.
>
> I'm not going to disagree with that. I enjoy reading your most of your posts and your RRs.
So, one might actually be able to differentiate between my interaction on a.m-b, and someone whose
interaction seems to be 99% churlish and devisive? Therefore, I might actually just be having a go
every now and again just for yuks?
> > 2.) I consider the reveling in childish argument a symptom of his problem, not merely the act
> > of engagement in said argument.
>
> What is this 'problem' that you've diagnosed? What makes you qualified to establish that he has a
> problem? And if you truly believe that he does have a problem, then what does that make you?
> Somebody who choses to have fights with somebody who they know has a problem...
He's a sociopath. (Look it up.) But hey, if a psychologist can pass himself off as a real scientist,
surely a real scientist can pass himself off as a psychologist!
What it makes me is an amused observer. I do not accept responsibility for his actions, nor for his
reactions to my postings. All that is on his shoulders. If he needs professional help, that's also
his business.
I have no bad feelings whatsoever about poking fun at him. But I do think that trying to equate our
behavior is disingenuous on your part.
> > You, Rimmer, Pete F., JD, Clyde, etc. have all taken their shots. Are you suggesting, even for
> > a moment, that those folks should be compared to Dave, just because they engaged him at his
> > level?
>
> The thing is that all of the people that you've named there don't chose to argue with the same one
> or two people on a regular basis.
LOL. Nonsense.
Define "regular basis."
> > suggesting that by engaging Dave at his level, that you are comparing your motivations
> > with his?
>
> Haha, probably...
Again, nonsense. He has some sort of problem. I doubt that you do.
> > 4.) Finally, while reveling in childish argument might be a symptom of a lack of human decency,
> > it certainly isn't the only one. It might in fact be just a minor one, with his own dumbass
> > commentary as the primary indicator.
> >
> > While I do agree that there is irony in my comments, and that I have sunk to his level on
> > several occasions, I do not agree at any point that those acts in any way indicate that I have
> > the same sort of mindset.
>
> And how do we tell the difference?
Posting content.
> I mean, you know your own motivations for arguing with Dave, and you think you know Dave's, but
> how are the rest of us supposed to gauge 'mindsets' in a name-calling contest?
By posting content, taken in total. You have mentioned that you thought positively of some of my
postings in a.m-b. Can the same be said to Dave's? To anything close to the same degree? The
appearance of irony is merely that - appearance. And BTW, I do appreciate kind words about my
postings. If someone takes something positive away from what I write, great. If folks don't like
what I write, then my suggestion is to not read it. I try to be more positive than negative, but I'm
a package deal.
> > your implied criticism has no effect on my self-worth, nor will it have an effect on my posting
> > habits.
>
> I'm sure it won't. Pity...
Why so?
--
Jonesy