Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your insinuations are offensive, but I've read enough of your
> > > > > > dribblings to know you're not adult enough to offer an apology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was it something I said?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Are you adult enough to recognize that your insinuations are
> > > > offensive, or do you need some public schooling in the matter?
> > >
> > > While this is a public forum, the remarks that you object
> > > to were made to Sandy in responding to a question he
> > > asked.
> >
> > No they weren't. If the above were true, then the answer to Sandy's
> > question would have been a simple "no".
>
> The question cannot be addressed with a simple `no' in its
> context because the question asked has implications and I
> spoke to them.
Of course it could. It's a simple "yes/no" question. The
*implications* come in context of my comments.
But we both knew that in advance.
> > > Instead you chose to introduce the subject, then
> > > objected when it was addressed.
> >
> > Ah, so you *were* addressing my comments. Nice of you to lie a few
> > times before admitting the truth.
> >
> > You're not even adult enough to admit you were speaking to my postings.
> > How small of you.
>
> I stand behind my comments in the reply to Sandy.
Even though I have repeatedly told you they are a distortion of the
reality? Even after explaining it more fully? Even after I told you
that the distortion was offensive?
You came to a conclusion, and no data will rouse you from that
position. How pro-helmet-like of you.
> As you
> became abusive at my remarks I chose a polite lie that I
> did not address you.
You were the one to begin the abuse, by insinuating false things
without one shred of knowledge. Things you would dare not insinuate in
person.
> And as you find this unacceptable we
> can return. I will address them you. You say that you
> limit your choices to battling your wife or doing what she
> expects without comment.
A lie no less bold than the first one you told. Can you not comprehend
anything more subtle than this? Is everything black and white? If so,
then this conversation is at an end.
> Do you respect her? That is not
> to expressing it: battle or shut up.
You are being deliberately obtuse to avoid admitting that your original
characterizations were made without any sort of knowledge.
> Or do you believe in
> bicycle helmets, and hide behind your wife?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Is it love to say `I will do as you say", even when you
> know otherwise?
Is it a false characterization to make the request or preference into a
demand? Why, yes, yes it is!
> No, it is contempt, or submission to
> emotional blackmail, or part of a negotiation, or
> appeasement
Of course it is, when you construct your strawman like that. But
that's not the reality of the situation, now is it? Since you cannot
admit that you made an error in your characterization, then you must
stick by this to avoid being wrong. Wait, isn't that the thing you
bemoan in usenet? Wow.
> No good can come of it; only a
> temporary, uneasy peace that is no peace at all. Best to
> sort out these matters.
Especially when they are invented whole out of the cloth. By turning a
preference into a demand, and by turning my preference into an
adversion, all of a sudden, there's conflict where it never really
existed! Presto-change-o, here we have a way to pistol-whip yet
another preson who is not part of the anti-helmet jihad!
IOW, you are willfully complete in your idiocy. Thank you for
confirming what I already knew.
E.P.
