In Reply to: "You've accused me of being stalker." I did not! That was the other guy... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2007 at 13:24:02:
My apologies if the stalker comment was not directed at me. You used ambiguous pronouns. In discussions where Wellfed was talking about me ("You'd think Geoff Kait gave len_ a snuggy or something"), you responded to his post with the following: "Naw, he's just a stalker. Been nipping and yapping at me for years. No ammo in his tube, tho. nt". I now understand you weren't referring to me, but hopefully you can see why I thought it was.
I did make the majority statement earlier and regret doing so. I am not perfect and definitely not immune from logical fallacy (especially when I'm debating with people who refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement). The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies in order to perpetuate meaningful and reasonable discussion. You don't seem to care. That's fine. Rhetorical arguments (e.g. your pithy one-liners) can be fun. Not very useful, but fun. And maybe fun is all you're trying to get out of this.
I never used the word "knowingly" and "violated" in conjunction. I did say he knowingly took intellectual property (photo) that wasn't his. Can we get off this semantic merry-go-round?
I don't think what Geoff did was a petty mistake. It's your right to hold that opinion. I value intellectual property rights and ethics. Going public yielded results. It also makes people aware of this situation. What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?
That any "bashers" latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility. Neither is it my burden that "fanboys" latched on. You guys are all mature, sentient beings (or at least you should be). Shoulder your own accountability, please.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "You've accused me of being stalker." I did not! That was the other guy... - Len_ 13:52:39 07/24/07 (15)
- So I "refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement"? But you're the one who... - clarkjohnsen 08:45:41 07/25/07 (2)
- RE: So I "refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement"? But you're the one who... - Len_ 10:02:40 07/25/07 (1)
- Hell knows no fury like a little man scorned. [nt] - Wellfed 11:32:52 07/25/07 (0)
- Was it logical to characterize MD's springs as being of inferior quality?... - Wellfed 14:04:38 07/24/07 (11)
- RE: Was it logical to characterize MD's springs as being of inferior quality?... - Len_ 14:13:37 07/24/07 (10)
- Normally people don't call disagreements tantrums either. [nt] - Wellfed 14:19:10 07/24/07 (9)
- RE: Normally people don't call disagreements tantrums either. [nt] - Len_ 14:27:40 07/24/07 (8)
- Your complaint has been not "a whine", but petty from post #1. - clarkjohnsen 08:20:01 07/25/07 (7)
- RE: Your complaint has been not "a whine", but petty from post #1. - Len_ 09:51:23 07/25/07 (2)
- RE: Your complaint has been not "a whine", but petty from post #1. - sjb 08:38:25 07/26/07 (1)
- RE: Your complaint has been not "a whine", but petty from post #1. - Len_ 09:42:28 07/26/07 (0)
- Two wrongs don't make a right... - AOK_Farmer 09:32:33 07/25/07 (3)
- You know, you said that... - AOK_Farmer 15:43:15 07/25/07 (1)
- RE: You know, you said that... - Len_ 15:46:01 07/25/07 (0)
- Uh... nt - clarkjohnsen 09:35:34 07/25/07 (0)