Re: How to normalize this?

Op zaterdag 9 februari 2013 02:42:12 UTC+1 schreef derek.a..._at_gmail.com het volgende:

(snipped ad-hom)

> Another incredibility, given the fact that, despite what you say, you took just 18 minutes to notice my post *and* to respond to it.

Check the timestamps on my posts. I came here to post this question. After posting, I noticed new posts in the other topic, read them, and started working on my reply. Which took me a few hours - you put a lot of effort in that post, and it warranted a similar effort on my part. Then, when I posted that reply, I saw your new post here and responded. Not exactly rocket science.

> Which is fine, and it is a rejection of my terms, no matter what you call it, no matter how much you dance around it, no matter if you re-define the terms as non-terms. (I notice you have your own private definitions for many things.

Your terms include "you must not lie". But all your posts demonstrate that you apply the term "lie to any arguments you can't refute, and that you insult whoever posts evidence that you are wrong. I do not lie by any generally accepted dictionary definition of the word "lie". By your personal, completely different definition, I apparently do lie.

Your terms include "you must guarantee to reply to my posts within 24 hours". But you yourself are, apparently, from to take much longer to respond to my posts. (Evidence is in the other topic, wherre I posted on Feb 5 and you responded on Feb 7). Double standards.

Your terms include "you must guarantee to reply within 24 hours", and "you must take the time to carefully read my posts, several times, and ponder them, before replying". Given timezone differences, family obligations, jobs, etc, posting *any* reply within 24 hours is hard; posting a well thought-out reply after carefully pondering your words is impossible to guarantee.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Your stated terms are not designed to guarantee a valuable conversation, they are designed to lure me in a trap. Given the number of times you have already accused me, completely unfounded, of lying, being illogical, being argumentative, contradicting myself, etc, I have no reason to believe you'll stop doing so after I agree to these terms. I have no intention of giving you more ammunition to drag the quality of discussion down to the level of mudslinging contests when you are already perfectly capable of doing so without it.

You obviously had no intention of sharing the answer to my question, if you even know it at all. You simply could not resist the urge to continue your endless stream of unfounded ad-hominem, and to boost your self-esteem by publicly claiming to know something I don't.

I am still interested in getting an answer to my original question in this topic, from whoever is prepared to help me out. I am not interested in your opinions about my mental health, my idiocy, my argumentativeness, or whatever other nonsense you may come up with. Received on Sat Feb 09 2013 - 11:27:42 CET