Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Rick wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 10:50 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
>
> As I respond to just about every post in the exact same, in-line, 
> method, I believe your accusation of "concealment" is weak and 
> unjustified.

What you deleted was concealed from me.  That doesn't imply intention.


> Does your mail reader not thread? In future conversations, I'll leave it 
> for your reference.

I'm using Pine.  Incoming mail goes to an inbox.  I could copy your 
message to the MLUG "saved" folder, then look back at earlier messages. 
May point applies regardless of the program I use to read your mail:  You 
should save in the message what is needed for the recipient to reply to 
that message.


> You've said those exact words perhaps once in 9 years, but you've said 
> many other similar derisive things to the person you're conversing with.

But was it ever unjustified?  You should look back at some of the asinine 
things people write to me and to the list.


> Is it easy to pick on you specifically? I don't personally think that 
> I'm picking on you per se, but I do object to your abusive tactics

What "abusive tactics?"  I'm still waiting to hear.  I've read some of the 
old messages you recommended but I didn't find anything that I would call 
"abusive tactics."  The specific thing we were just talking about here was 
that I wrote "I don't understand your question." when I didn't understand 
someone's question.

I think I have to stop now because I realize that I am wasting my time 
again.  This is a good example of this kind of thing.  Maybe what happens 
is my replies reward people for sending ridiculous messages.  My reply 
might seem to imply that they had written something worth reading, but 
that rarely happens.  From now on I should ignore ridiculous messages and 
reply with positive words only to people who send good messages.  Soon 
we'll have all good messages.

To be fair to Rick for working on this, I'll reply to this:

http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-03/msg00245.php3

> 2. Your one sentence comment added to the full article posting left me 
> to question whether you were agreeing with the review or the book....

That was a question that you did not ask.


> 3. You then chide Christian for making fun of you making fun of me

It was more than that.  I had given a full substantive answer to the 
question even though you hadn't really asked it.  Christian was accusing 
me of wasting bandwidth by not focusing on the important issues, but that 
was disingenuous because I had done so in the remainder of my message and 
because his message was even more obviously off topic.  How can my message 
be construed as wrong or inappropriate?  That makes no sense.


> 4. You mention that no one can respond to the "facts", of which your 
> previous posting is rather lacking. There's lots of numbers and 
> suppositions, but the support for those is not in the article you 
> posted.

Here is that message:

http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-03/msg00241.php3

Here is your response to all of those numbers and suppositions: 
"So....you're simply posting an article that agrees with your views?"

That was it.  You had nothing worthwhile to say, but you had to toss a 
little insult out there.  This led to more stupid messages, such as the 
one from Christian Cepel.

It was a big waste of my time.  And now you want to relive it all and 
accuse me of doing something inappropriate.  That is completely nuts. 
Enough is enough.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion