In Reply to: Wow, John... posted by Commuteman on August 25, 2004 at 14:14:34:
Peter: ""So JR answered your question with:
1) A statement that he did not believe you had innocently missed the identitly of "the nail", and therefore concluded that you had consciously chosen to do so.Ah yes, he answered with:""you can't possibly be that dense, it must be an act""
You simply chose to ignore the insult..
Peter: ""Is he right? Did you not know what the nail was? (Note: something to answer)""
Ah yes, I did recognize that "?" thingy...
Of course, the question was never posed as to whether or not I knew the poster...as I recall, he just stated another naysayer with a closed mind, brainwashed, etc...If this is a game of Jeapardy, you should have warned me, so that I could frame my answers as questions...then, there'd be questions..
Peter: ""2) Further support for his contention that Soundmind is a trolling naysayer by quoting Soundminds posts. (BTW: not my accusation, and when I asked Soundmind directly, he denied it, preferring to be labelled "idiot")
Do you agree or disagree? (Note: something to answer)""
Again, that "?" thingy...gotta love it..can't tell the players without a program..
Not knowing who the person is does tend to hamper one's ability to know exactly what one's agenda is...don't you think???
Honestly, you haven't provided anything of any substance which would convince anyone that cables have a sound to them..nothing...squat..just words, lots of them..
You already know my position, so I won't repeat it..but in your dialogue with sm, you haven't convinced him (her) of anything..
Now, do you call everybody you can't convince of the accuracy of your "unsubstantiated claims" (which may be exactly what he(she) thinks of them, who knows?) a troll, idiot, or brainwashed naysayer??? (Note, that is indeed a question).
So far, that is what JR is all about..if he can't baffle em with bs, belittle em.. (PROVE THAT STATEMENT WRONG)
Peter: ""3) Stating that (in his opinion) you know Soundmind and are in some way complicit in the supposed trolling.""
True or false? (Note: something to answer)
JR can state what he wants...and may even believe it in his own mind..
But, he, and you, are calling scientific questions trolling...so you are also guilty of branding, rather than dialogue..
I've noted over the last two years, that the "yaysayer" camp is extremely guilty of stooping to denigration of character, intelligence, and motives (for example, idiot, troll, naysayer, brainwashed, in this thread alone), whenever they are asked to provide anything of substance to back their claims..you are guilty of that as well..AND, you defend other's right to behave that way..just look that this thread, from which I pulled those 4 examples of poor behaviour..
I expect better from everyone..can you actually run an entire thread without stooping to that level even if you don't convince the other??? I certainly can see from history that JR can't.
Cheers, John..
PS.granholm...I saw it...you made a reasonable and correct statement, I saw no reason for you to delete it..
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Stop with the between the lines stuff. - jneutron 06:52:48 08/26/04 (3)
- Sorry - wont chicken out again on you ;o) nt! - Granholm 06:09:43 08/27/04 (2)
- Well ok.. - Granholm 06:19:54 08/27/04 (1)
- Re: Well ok.. - jneutron 06:49:29 08/27/04 (0)