You have changed the subject, and characterized my positions in a way that does not accord with what they are, and is quite inflammatory.
There is a Latin phrase that describes what you have done there perfectly: ignoratio elenchi. It is a rhetorical trick in which the speaker changes the subject from the one under discussion to another, usually one highly charged emotionally.
My post to you in response to your insulting comment about me to JLA contained a very very simple question. Why did you fail to reply to it?
I believe that the paragraph below was written by a writer who understood that it could be received as a threat to do something I would not like unless I complied with his wishes.
(I have utterly understood, Neocon, from the very beginning, that deniability was built into the statement; my intent was to force the denial and thus negate the threat of harassment on other threads, which I have done successfully; what is happening now, with you, I could characterize, because I believe I understand it well, but it would be a change of subject.)
You agree -- you did this here, in writing -- that the paragraph below could be so interpreted!; but you make the point, with which I agree, that there was also available a "benign" interpretation.
Yes, I agree with you that both are there. We agree on that.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU THINK THAT AMONG THE THREE OF US, HAQIHANA IS THE ONLY ONE WHO DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A THREATENING INTERPRETATION.
Possibly you could answer this directly? Without changing the subject to me?
Or possibly not.
Here is the paragraph that you and I agree lends itself to two interpretations:
If you persist in the type of vindictive posts you have been
sending, I will consider you an enemy and take appropriate action
in the way of words on this, or any other, thread. If you want to
ignore PROLIFE, that is an option open to you, but any more of
what
I have been reading, will bring swift retaliation."
I knew.
You knew.
Did haqi alone not know? |
