Posted: Apr 23, 2017 9:51 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Missed this the first time around. I implied no such thing.
I said nothing about contadicting laws.


So? You didn't? I didn't say you did.... What I said you implied is emphasized above.

Except that I did not such thing.
I pointed out that when you have a text that contains a rule, why would you expect such a rule to appear mutliple times.
Nothing to do with contradicting laws.

PensivePenny wrote: And yeah, you did imply THAT.

This is still a blind counterfactual assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it, even with words in all caps.
I explained exactly why I used the analogy of text of laws. You added the whole contradictions ruling each other out, thing yourself.


PensivePenny wrote: Tell, me o teacher.

While I am a teacher, I suspect this is nothing but a passive agressive remark.
Not only is that unhelpful in a rational discussion, it contravenes the FUA you signed Penny.

PensivePenny wrote:
.. does claiming I said YOU said something about contradicting laws (when I didn't) rise to the level of straw man?

Since I never said that, it's irrelevant.
All I did was point that I never said anything that would imply contradictions ruling each other out and that its therefore something you added to the conversation.
If you did so intentionally, then yes, it's a straw-man. However I assume you didn't so it's probably a misunderstanding.
Now, given that I've eplained twice exactly how I used the anology, I hope you understand.
If you do and keep insisting I implied something that cannot be found in my post, then yes, you will be staw-manning.
However, I'm hoping that you're interested in a rational discussion, rather than a vindictive one.

PensivePenny wrote: See? Your interpretation cherry picks what you want to hear,

Wrong, that's what you keep doing. You keep interpeting things that are not present in my posts or worse outright making up claims and motivations for me that I have not expressed.
Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, that this is based on one or more misunderstandings on your part and not repeated attempts to straw-man me and/or poison the well.

PensivePenny wrote:which in my observation of your posts, when it comes from a forum member with whom you are unfamiliar, you "interpret" in the most adversarial way possible.

Then your observation is severly flawed as I've not once expressed any adversiality.
I've only been skeptical of some of your arguments and responses, because they seem to lack either sound reasoning and/or a misunderstanding (deliberate or non-deliberate) of what your interlocutors post.


PensivePenny wrote: I didn't come here with an agenda or even any kind of strong claim. I just don't get your aggression on minor unimportant aspects of a thread.

Again, I haven't expressed any agression.
It would really help if you read what I actually post, rather than projecting all manner of things on me.


Whatever you say, Thomas.

I notice, that once again, you don't actually adress anything I've said, instead opting to post this:

PensivePenny wrote: If subtlety escapes you, let me point it out.

Another passive-agressive remark.

PensivePenny wrote: I've withdrawn from attempts to have a meaningful discussion with you.

That has nothing to do with subtlety.
It's your perogative to not engage in a discussion. However this won't prevent me from pointing out things in your post that aren't clear, irrational, misrepresentations or unsupported.
This is not agressive, nor is it personal. As you can see, I just did the same with one of John Paltko's posts.

PensivePenny wrote: For whatever reason,

I have stated my reason for adressing your post clearly. So there's no 'whatever'.
It also makes the rest of this sentence rather hypocritical.

PensivePenny wrote: through your desire to be intentionally obtuse or adversarial

Again, I've clearly stated that my reason for my responses to your post is to understand them and point out errors in them (if there are any).
Doing so is not being intentionally obtuse nor adversarial.


PensivePenny wrote: or maybe just you and I don't gel

I harbour no ill will to you in any way.
At best I take issue with your repeated attempts to project nefarious motives and straw-man positions onto me.
But that's a judgment of what you posted, not you as a person.


PensivePenny wrote:... whatever the reason, I see trying to engage you as pointless.

Like I said, our discusssions would be far more productive if you took the effort to read and respond to what I actually post, rather than sticking various unsubstantiated motivations and straw-man positions to me.

PensivePenny wrote: If that hasn't been apparent to you, hopefully now it will be. Frankly, if you have such a problem with things I've written, I am puzzled why you haven't withdrawn as well.

Given that I've already explained this in the very post you're responding to, I wonder why you're puzzeled.
Could it be that you haven't actually read what you've just responded to?

PensivePenny wrote: Ok. Now I've moved on.

Best wishes :cheers:

Again, it's your perogative and if you feel like you're frustrated by our interaction, taking a step back may help.
But I advise you to reread our ongoing discussion in this thread and realise I haven't expressed any hostility, adversialiaty nor deliberate obtuseness.

Hope you have a nice day/night, wichever is applicable.