What a cheap and tawdry response. You are being outrageous.
I have no idea what your "reputation" is; but I am quite certain that your penchant for ad hominen diversions and "arguing" through uninvolved "extras" is very reflective of your character. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Waiting a few days in the hope that the essentials of our discussion would be buried in posts and obscured by time and activity certainly speaks to your character as well.
All I did was gently prod you to strighten up and fly right. I tried to encourage you to risk taking your heels out of the concrete and to be forthcoming, open, and mature in your response. I do not know why you consider it to be a laughing matter. You only needed to acknowledge the discrepancy of your words and to simply give whatever honest and natural explanation seemed consistent with the contradiction. ONCE IT WAS RESOLVED YOU COULD HAVE BEEN GRACIOUS ABOUT THE MATTER. BUT INSTEAD THIS ATTACK OF YOURS--AND SIMILAR CHILDISH POSTS.
Denial of outright facts coupled with a childish defiance is nothing to be proud of; and neither this nor any other matter justifies your churlish back-biting. And surely you do not think that name calling furthers your argument OR your reputation...either one. Again...you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
So let us not forget the simple facts of the matter: We had been having a decent enough discussion until you made contradictory statements and I asked you to clear up my confusion. For no apparent reason you dug in your heels in defiance and attempted to obscure the issue and entangle the facts.
You have often exhibited this hypersensitive overreaction to imagined slights. Was it so difficult for you--IS it so difficult for you to simply acknowedge that I had resolved the issue and that the matter stood clear?
The following consequtive quotes indicate how I got you to clarify what you were saying. I then summarized it in quote #8 (which I have bolded here). All you needed to acknowledge at that time was that I had got it EXACTLY right and was summarizing EXACTLY what you said and what you meant. But instead--what did you do? You started making smarmy allusions to weirdness, and you began to comtaminate our dialogue with a strange churlishness.
So, the simple fact of the matter is that we had resolved the appparent discrepancies in your statements, and had ironed out the contradictions PERFECTLY (except for the apparent incongruity between time spent on the computer and not on SI seeming to be greater than time spent on SI--which was and is difficult to understand when one examines times of post, etc.; but I had only alluded to this once, and was certainly not pursuing it).
(1) "I spend a fair amount of time at being a rhetorician, actually. One of the main things I do on the computer is write publicity pieces and other sorts of persuasive prose"
(2) "I am a good rhetorician"
(3) "I consider myself primarily a dialectician in this format"..."Since I consider only a fraction of my time to be focused on rhetoric, as opposed to dialectic..."
(4) "I spend a fair amount of time at being a rhetorician, actually.
(5)"Away from SI you spend a large amount of time on being a rhetorician, then??"
(6)"Isuppose because you seemed to be favouring "at the computer" over "sometimes" away from it...it seemed obvious that the "good deal of time being a rhetorician" was time spent on the computer. I see you a lot on the computer so integrating this with the tiny fraction of time you claim to spend on SI being a rhetorician suggested to me that you spent a lot of time on "the computer being a rhetorician on a site not SI. You have not been very forthcoming about these other sites, nor is it clear why you attach most of your rhetorical competence to these other sites while giving only a fraction of such to SI. Considering the times of your posts, it leads one to some confusion over where and why and how you are hammering this rhetorician persona that you have only given us a smell of(or a fraction of if you will) on SI."
(7)"Again, this is getting a little odd. I am not on another site, I am doing actual work, as I noted already, like writing brochures or speeches or other material on my word processor"
(8)"So you are a rhetorician most of the time using word processing...and only a fraction of the time while on SI?? Is that correct?? Or is most of your "rhetorical" stuff done "SOMETIMES" when you are not on the computer??"
(9)I am sorry, this getting too weird for me. I have other things to do....
"One wonders why a summary of your assertions is "TOO WEIRD"! :-)" |
