RussSchultz said:
Just a hint, Demalion. If you really want people to read everything you write, write less.
Just a hint, Russ. If you are going to write something, say something coherent with the words.
Are the "obligatory" put-downs out of the way, now?
I wrote a total of 1 sentence prior to your first response of 8 paragraphs showing me how I am in trying to prevent this person from holding an opinion.
Oh, you used less words than me. I guess you were right after all.
This would be a straw man, if an example was needed, BTW.
...Russ ignores every point I make, and counts words, while spending a lot of (countable) words doing so, which seems sort of contradictory to even the straw man "point" being put forth...
The truth of the matter is, your discussion style ends up in people wanting to avoid discussion with you precisely because such discussion is futile.
Here's a thought Russ...
maybe you are wrong. Do you think if you don't honestly admit that, that you can't be? Maybe your frustration in not being able to respond to my points is the product of your own conversation, and not mine. Despite your complaints of word count in my posts, those words are absolutely rife with specific items that can be logically addressed to tackle any point I raise.
My being able to discuss something wrong with what you stated in such detail might simply be because...there is something wrong with what you stated.
As long as you deny that possibility in a discussion, or alternatively, as an example, propose that your admitting that you are wrong is only an insencere statement of appeasement for someone rude enough not to let you have your way with being right when you want to be...discussions with you are fruitless.
But how is that
my fault?
Its no wonder nobody gets what you're trying to say, as you deconstruct any intended meaning out of sentences and bury it in semantics.
Russ, some day you will stop saying things fall "up", and I can stop discussing the definition of up and down with you. Request: please stop saying up is down.
Since I'm not literally proposing you said up is down, hopefully I don't have to specify the exact conditions under discussion for this example as a product of your "throwing" your perception of what semantics are for "back at me"?
There's only so many times I can restate my opinion and have it torn apart without simply getting frustrated.
Russ, I'm sorry, but there seems to be no way to get around this: AFAICS, your opinion deserves to be torn apart.
Not simply because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't stand. I disagree with it
because it doesn't stand...if I am wrong in that assertion, hold a discussion to show it instead of spending ALL your time complaining about my disagreement and simply restating it because you don't like that disagreement!
You are perfectly free to establish otherwise, but you
do have to establish it. Those words you complain about are my recognition that
I have to do the same, and I do. Here is a revolutianary thought:
if you don't see an error in my reasoning and my description of flaws in yours, perhaps it is because there is not such an error...if you do see such an error, discuss it instead of what you are doing now.
I end up spending an extreme amount of words explaining things multiple times due to your simply seeking a way to avoid doing this. An ever expanding list of things you tack on to avoid discussing what I've already proposed.
3 paragraphs of something I've said before, and seems pretty glaringly obvious to me. Simply dismissing them as wrong or useless, as you've done before by word or deed, does not make them so...try addressing them in a different way, maybe even by taking them to heart.
/ignores oncoming 10 paragraph response on how I missed the point.
"Plug your ears" and go 'nyah, nyah, nyah', eh?
