Ronald, "In any event thank you for your flawless execution of self-incrimination."
That would be not the first time. The guy likes "to play"
with truth, and admits that, e.g.:
Message 17254611
"It was a taunt. My post was a play on that and didn't mean it was or wasn't true. - EP"
You also wrote:
"The routine acerbic behavior of people on this thread, on both sides of the aisle, is despicable and classically un-American. Ad Hominem attacks don’t win debates. They often are simply symptoms of arguments gone dry.
People on this thread might want to try practicing random acts of courtesy and respect for their adversaries. It does take more talent to disagree and to persuade without using caustic language"
I think you are too naive here. The SI is not a place
for scholastic exercises or theoretical debates for many.
There is an opinion that the big business is a contemporary
form of war. For many, this board is a
sideline of that battlefield, where they push their
own agendas to survive economically in the market-battle,
to help themselves to buy low and sell high
to "other suckers". In this environment there is no
"debates", only goals, at any cost. You can figuratively
spit facts in the face of a guy like "Elmer" or "Whortso",
but they would just wipe themselves and continue to push their
agendas. You cannot win any "arguments", because their
goals are beyond any "persuasion". Eventually they would
hide from you with "ignore button", end of "debates".
Regards,
- Ali |
