tonyt, OFF TOPIC, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand that every time you post something here, you give the threadsters another opportunity to note whether or not you have a reasoning impairment, and if they conclude you have such an affliction, whether it is deteriorating rapidly or being held in check. Additionally, they have the opportunity to note whether your difficulty with written expression in English has ameliorated any.
Your most recent response to me, unfortunately, doesn't offer much hope to those praying for improvement, IMO.
>> You took my statement that 'His (sic) posting stated that Hulbert ranked CTSL dead last, (sic) what more proof do you need for Murphy's "utter lack of credibility"?' (sic) and spun it into my denying that CTSL was ranked #2 two years ago (did you learn how to spin from henry (sic), bop (sic), or both?).
Anyone capable of reasoning would know that my question that asked whether you were denying that Murphy was ranked #2 by Hulbert for the ten years from 1987 to 1996, was not an accusation that you had made the denial that you now project I have accused you of. I asked you if you denied it. You twisted my question into your own projection that you had made the denial. And you accused me of spinning because you were incapable of reasoning that a question is not an accusation.
Let us continue with your ability, or lack thereof, to reason. Your response that because Rudy stated that "Hulbert ranked CTSL dead last, what more proof do you need for Murphy's "utter lack of credibility"?"
Since you already knew that Hulbert had ranked CTSL #2 for the 10 years from 1987 through 19996, Hulbert's classification of "dead last" could only have been "for the current period". You have reasoned that someone who has performed spectacularly for the ten years prior to 1997 and performed "dead last" for the subsequent one year has an "utter lack of credibility". Your inability to note that the proportion of ten to one is significant casts grave doubt on your reasoning ability. Naturally enough, your assumption that the mere statement, without any evidence produced to verify its accuracy, by Rudy, was proof enough to justify his accusation, shouts to the rooftops about your ability to reason.
Lastly, your statement, "... did you know that this discussion does not belong on the Ligand (Breakout!) thread but on the CTSL thread, or "are you incapable of understanding that"?" again points out how you reason. As you know, or can easily find out, my discussion with Rudy on this thread started after his second posting disparaging Michael Murphy.
On Thursday, 5/25/98 at 2:02 PM ET in Reply # 22698, Rudy Saucillo arrived on the LGND thread after spending his SI time from late 9/97 until 6/25/98 commenting on the threads of CIST,AMLN,ERGO,CEPH,ALTN,CNSI,& NTII.
In Reply #22702 I responded to him, "Rudy, OFF TOPIC Do you think the best use of this thread is to vent your displeasure with Michael Murphy?
Is there not already a thread set up for that purpose?"
With my response, both he & you should have been notified that there was another thread devoted to dealing with remarks about Murphy. But your reasoning ability was sufficiently weak to cause you to respond to me on the LGND thread in Reply #22775 "His posting stated that Hulbert ranked CTSL dead last, what more proof do you need for Murphy's "utter lack of credibility"?" You ended with "BTW, there already is a CTSL thread, perhaps you should take this discussion over there." Your reasoning led you to discuss Murphy with me on the LGND thread despite the fact that I had already asked Rudy and by inference any who read this thread, "Is there not already a thread set up for that purpose?" And, after making you point about Murphy on this thread, you asked, "BTW,did you know that this discussion does not belong on the Ligand (Breakout!) thread but on the CTSL thread, or are you incapable of understanding that":" You, who believes that the discussion of Murphy does not belong on this thread, discusses Murphy on this thread. That kind of reasoning points to an impaired capability in this area. Moreover, instead of telling Rudy, who opened the Murphy discussion on this thread, you tell me, who has already asked Rudy if there is not another thread set up for the purpose. Both you & I are in agreement on the presence of the other thread, but you caution me rather than Rudy. The threadsters will no doubt make a judgement as to your reasoning ability. The shame is you could have avoided the judgement by not posting, thereby, hiding your failure.
P.S. You sentence that ends with "... or will you continue use old rankings in your argument?", should encourage you to bone up on your English usage skills. |
