On Aug 30, 12:33=A0pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > On Aug 28, 11:56=A0pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
> >> your denial is Clintonesque -- perhaps technically accurate, but
utter=
ly
> >> misleading. =A0If you dislike these discussions, you could consider
ho=
w
> >> your words will be misinterpreted and steer further from the edge.
> >> If you start ad-hominem, you must expect it returned. =A0 Ideally by
> >> those not involved, because no-one can adequately defend themselves.
>
> > That's just plain twisted. =A0
>
> A rather strong statement to make without elaboration.
> Such hyperbole could be considered inflammatory.
>
Tough. There's more inflammatory. I'm sick to death of these games.
> > I was making a JOKE. =A0
>
> Perhaps. =A0But the comic is to blame when the audience
> doesn't laugh. =A0Artful communication puts the burden
> of misunderstanding on the artificer.
>
I am not responsible for how you perceive the world, and I'm not
interested in the social rules you are so certain of. Stop trying to
tell me what's true about the human condition, because I don't think
you have a clue.
> > That's what the ;-) was for.
>
> That is perhaps what you intended. =A0However, text postings
> are very short of your precious bandwidth so it is very
> difficult to convey intentions.
>
Emoticons are the accepted way to convery that a comment is not to be
taken at face value. If you live by some other system, have at it,
but stop trying to educate me.
> > Ad hominem is pretty clearly defined and
>
> Ad-hominem is clearly defined (wiki) yet has many,
> many manifestations, including this:
>
Don't lecture me. Pissing matches with you just aren't worth it. If
you want to talk about computers, have at it. Otherwise, I'm tired of
playing.
Robert.
|
