georgeob1 wrote: Let me see if I've got this right: You are not playing a juvenile 'gotcha" game here and the proof of that assertion is that you provide complete arguments to back up each "gotcha" (though they don't look so complete to me). Hmmm
Uh, no, it's because writing full responses and backing them up with support is not playing a "gotcha" game, it's called argumentation combined with basic decency. I would suppose your idea of a "gotcha game" is so loose that you extend it to such things? If that's the case, I wonder why you would imply it to be something vaguely negative.
georgeob1 wrote:Are the arguments "terse" or "fully supported"? - you can't have it both ways.
A little bit of rereading my post will fix that for you. Notice the condition supporting my arguments applied to: being challenged. As it turns out, I've learned that immediately going into an in-depth explanation is often a worthless activity if the person one is talking to doesn't care anyways. This is common for "hit-and-run" posts or one's like neologist's or gungasnake's recent ones about Dawkins. They're just having some petty fun, there's no need for me to start guessing at what they think supports their arguments and to detail how Dawkins isn't those things, etc. I point out that I've never seen what they have and that if they disagree with my opinion, I'd appreciate seeing their evidence.
georgeob1 wrote:You overestimate the appeal of your rhetoric.
lol, when did I say it was appealing, as in generally appealing? I fully expect various people to dismiss my arguments, legitimately and illegitimately. I expect this to be the case most often with the topics I generally post in as well, as there's often a bit of arrogance involved in the issues.
georgeob1 wrote:While I once supposed that a sympathetic comparison of ideas and points of view with you was a possibility, I now realize that it is not. You are really interested only in a display of virtuosity on your part and one judged only by standards you set (and readjust as becomes necessary). In short, you are an overbearing, self-obsessed bore.
lol, this is nonsense. Quote me being an overbearing, self-obsessed bore. I don't care one whit for display either, in some kind of egotistical fashion: I argue in order to organize my own thoughts and perhaps peripherally convince someone of my opinions, or make them think a bit differently. I most definitely don't expect *you* to care enough to read them and treat them fairly.
Oh, but that would just be an attempt to make myself look virtuous, wouldn't it? What a nice little system of personal attack you have set up: it never fails, even when wrong!
If I defend myself and point out your failures in attacking me or my arguments, I'm being a self-obsessed bore intent on making myself look 'virtuous'.
georgeob1 wrote: I have no interest in that game and find very little that is new or insightful in your commentary.
Good, now how about we play the game I've actually proposed rather than your rather insulting straw man of my goals and opinions? Choose a topic, say one of those ones you've dropped out on with me, and finish it. It would be a way for you to substantiate your claims about me supposedly just playing a "gotcha" game, a thesis to which you are clinging but have yet to supply any evidence whatsoever for (nor a clear description, considering your responses to my defenses).
Or you could do that another way
. Or you could pretend that you have a reasonable and substantiated opinion and blow me off, which is most likely what you'll do
. (oh no, I'm being an egotistical jerk again! Everyone look at me and love my opinions!)
