Foxfyre wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Foxfyre wrote:nimh wrote:And kudos to Keltic for doing the post-by-post analysis of the mechanism at work here.. but, done that been there. In fact, kind of grateful that someone else is doing it, so I wont have to anymore.
From experience tho, I wanna counsel: keep it up so long you're actually still enjoying yourself, but if you're not, by all means, do something else - its good that mechanisms are exposed, debunked etc - but you dont wanna be kicking yourself later for time better spent otherwise.
Kudos for taking it out of context and misrepresenting it? I suppose in your mind that is a good thing to do. I wouldn't expect any less of you.
NO criticism of anything you have written has ever been taken in context or represented correctly, ever, according to you, Fox.
You're the boy (well, girl) who cried wolf. Times ten.
Cycloptichorn
And you got it wrong. Again. But I compliment you on your alertness for any opportunity to pile on.
I miss them left and right, only to sit around shaking my head later on at my loss.
Seriously, Fox - you aren't stalked here. You just provide countless opportunities. For every single one I take, there are ten that I ignore.
I'm sure you're a very nice person; but your argumentation stinks and your stubborn refusal to either admit that fact or do any sort of work to change it doesn't help.
Cycloptichorn
I haven't used the word stalked either so you got that wrong too. I don't mind at all debating the issues or having it explained to me how I am wrong. But you'll understand if petty sniping is not seen as good debate technique to me and comes across as really lame. If you don't like my argumentation please feel free to scroll right over my posts. That's what I do with others whose argumentation stinks.
That's nice that you do that; I engage them and show them the error of their ways. You must be a better person than I overall.
A careful review of your posting history will show that confrontations generally follow the same pattern -
1, you say something absolutely ridiculous and unsupportable by fact or logic.
2, others try to point this out to you - and generally with no personal invective whatsoever at this point.
3, you deny that you did anything wrong, and resort to claiming that you were -
- misquoted
- misunderstood
- misrepresented
- taken out of context
4, it is generally shown to you that none of these things are in fact true using both facts and sound logic. KW did exactly that in this thread when he reposted actual snippets of your argument.
5, you claim that you're being personally attacked and either withdraw from the conversation or attack others for attacking you.
It's the same pattern over and over. Face it, Fox. You like to toss bombs in conversation without anything to actually back them up other than your opinion or maybe an anecdote or two about people you personally know. You don't appreciate when others question what you say. You have no intention of ever admitting that you are wrong on an issue, no matter how good the logic is showing that you are or how poor your own argumentation is. You respond by attacking anyone who attacks you. You don't read others' evidence and in many cases just refuse to follow their links b/c you don't agree with the ideology of the websites. Eventually you claim that you are being ganged up on and persecuted. I could probably find ten instances of this same conversational pattern in the last two months alone.
What would you say about someone who consistently displays such behaviors? I'll tell you what I would say. I would say that their argumentation
stinks and that they should work harder at making it better, if they expect to be taken seriously.
Cycloptichorn
