Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (71774)	8/6/2003 10:09:01 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It was no more than a desire to respond honestly to a comment from a friend. Since I have often enough said it to your face, when you were in the process of performing the objectionable acts, I figured acknowledging it to a third party was harmless enough" No. You have never said that to me, or anything with a superlative that I recall. Nor does truth or correction of error equate to an "objectionable" act. So, you did not "acknowledge" anything. You simply took a piece of dung and transformed it into a manure pile. "No one with any real knowledge would automatically take a claim of skill at rhetoric as a confession of bad character." Ignoratio elenchi. You are inventing a conclusion (part of your rhetorical skill!). I admire good persuasion--especially when it is based on tricks and ploys. However, I resent personal assaults. A skill at rhetoric does not ENTAIL ignorant treatment of others, nor is it best evidenced by outright invention. Do you follow? "Bluster all you like, but I was not making a case against you, I was reporting my experience with you" I was not blustering (as you are well aware). And you were not "reporting an experience"--LOL!! You "reported" nothing in the way of "experience". You were making a superlative assessment and judgment that I was the "worst" at something or other. It was not a reasoned argument or response. It was a fit of pique intentionally couched in the language of attack and ignorance. Now, you may pretend to think that appeal to emotion gives your assessment some weight, but we both know better. It was an ignorant and hostile comment--pure and simple. "you may object; but you have too often behaved badly for me to care much about offending you..........." Leaving aside the false "fact" (that I have behaved "badly" toward you)--your conclusion is ignorant and disgusting. Perhaps I should follow suit and state "authoritatively" that you are the WORST at being ignorant and disgusting--LOL!!? Is your moral code so loose in the bowels that it only works when others are perfect? The truth is that you hate being held accountable to your rhetorical tricks and falsehoods! BTW--"X" has nailed you in another one of those "tricks". I have respectfully kept out of it. But my advice to you is to withdraw yourself in a speedy effort of interruptus! Your "argument" is laughable and it is only a matter of time before she finds an exact refutation (there are more than one) rather than merely a sufficient one...