But you’ve just completely justified my initial comment - you admit you were transparently attempting to manipulate them (and in this discussion did the same to me) instead of engaging in good faith.
This line of discussion has never been about your ideas, it’s been entirely about criticism of your behavior - which you have yourself just explained was completely correct.
The discussion is worth having
But not so worth having that you actually want to have it.
I don’t believe I have to say anything more here, my criticism stands as completely validated.
But you’ve just completely justified my initial comment
If you want to take my somewhat glib jab implying I was herding you into an actual discussion as bad faith… I have a comment in this thread about bears you should weigh in on, lol.
This line of discussion has never been about your ideas
I think the bulk of my responses refute that soundly.
I don’t believe I have to say anything more here, my criticism stands as completely validated.
It was getting cyclical, I agree. I can only lead the horse to water.
This line of discussion has never been about your ideas
No, this is still true; while you have been attempting to insert your ideas into a discussion about your behavior, this discussion has never been about your ideas, only your behavior. Even my one concession to discussing your ideas, asking you to tally the numbers of comments presenting in the way you describe, was entirely said in support of the discussion of your behavior.
You’ve also continued not to engage in good faith, for example you’re now trying to present my staying focused on one topic of discussion as being somehow “cyclical” as a way to present yourself as above this discussion. You also attempt to characterize your admission that you were trying to manipulate me as “just a joke”.
To reiterate the point: the initial criticism is and remains absolutely accurate, by your own admission.
To reiterate the point: the initial criticism is and remains absolutely accurate, by your own admission.
Words and context. Take from it what you will. Its apparent from your increasing focus on [your opinion of] me, despite my repeat attempts to get you back on topic, that you either lack the means to refute my points or simply are out of your depth. Its a distraction tactic.
In any case - I’d recommend either following through with your prior exit from this conversation or returning to the discussion about the subject matter. If I was interested in hearing baseless assertions about “me” I’d go read a horoscope.
And from these basic parts we derive all language.
While engaging with you here, the discussion has never been anything other than about my criticism of your behavior. I have never expressed an opinion of you beyond your behavior being that of a redditor (and criticisms of it stemming therefrom). Neither were my initial criticisms “baseless” - you confirmed they were completely accurate yourself. The focus has not increased, nor has there been an opportunity for you to guide me back on topic, because I have never departed from this topic - despite you repeatedly presenting new topics, which I have not engaged with as they are not relevant.
If you take a recounting of your behavior as somehow an expression of an opinion, I would suggest you modify your behavior so that when presented with it you do not feel the need to be defensive.
Again, my criticism of you has remained the only topic, and it has remained fully justified.
(Forgive me if there’s a delay in explaining this again, I’m going to go read a book for a while so I will not be checking my notifications for a bit.)
Your comment and logic falls flat when, in another thread, you’ve been speaking with me about the topic at hand without deviating into this cyclical psychoanalysis you’ve defaulted to where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter. If you dont want to engage on the root topic or the points I made along the way… That’s perfectly fine. That’s your opinion - but don’t tout it as some infallible fact when you can’t even remain consistent on your observations from thread to thread. Enjoy the book.
There’s been no psychoanalysis, cyclical or otherwise, occuring here. Simply a recounting of your directly observable behavior and the things you have said.
I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.
It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.
Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.
There’s been no psychoanalysis, cyclical or otherwise, occuring here. Simply a recounting of your directly observable behavior and the things you have said.
I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.
It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.
Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.
The response you are obsessing about was midway through our exchange where it had become comically apparent you’d become incapable of anything outside of this apparent “you you you.” In most debates - if you opponent needs to shift to personal attacks and comments on your as a person… They’ve lost.
Frankly, at that point you probably noticed a shift where I was simply having fun with the reaponses as I took you less seriously as time went on. And if I’m being honest, what reason have I to take you seriously? You are avoiding topic matter for whatever this broken record is. My “behavior,” as you put it, boils down to a differing opinion and willingness to discuss it openly. As mentioned before: ghastly behavior… Indeed. As this chain continues to highlight - I am open to discussing such things and you aren’t. Son, that’s not a me problem. I’d recommend a mirror… Or perhaps a book on debate. That’d at least make for a more interesting exchange. Presently I’m only getting mild amusement out of the broken record responses… And were veering dangerously close to that shifting to pity.
This isn’t a debate. I’m not attempting to persuade you. This is a discussion. I am criticizing you. I am discussing your initial and subsequent behavior that is self-evident in this discussion in a critical manner.
You cannot win, nor lose, a discussion - that just doesnt make sense - and that is in no small measure why I’ve refused to engage with you when you bring in unrelated topics to debate. Allowing a debate to expand from the initial topic could allow someone, acting in bad faith, to conflate the new debate topics and the initial discussion topic (my criticism) as being inherently linked, and thus imply they are points that someone could “win” or “lose”.
I have no interest in this discussion becoming a debate - I have made my assertions, have maintained those assertions consistently and those assertions have since been shown to be completely validated. There continues to be nothing that I need to add to that.
But you’ve just completely justified my initial comment - you admit you were transparently attempting to manipulate them (and in this discussion did the same to me) instead of engaging in good faith.
This line of discussion has never been about your ideas, it’s been entirely about criticism of your behavior - which you have yourself just explained was completely correct.
But not so worth having that you actually want to have it.
I don’t believe I have to say anything more here, my criticism stands as completely validated.
If you want to take my somewhat glib jab implying I was herding you into an actual discussion as bad faith… I have a comment in this thread about bears you should weigh in on, lol.
I think the bulk of my responses refute that soundly.
It was getting cyclical, I agree. I can only lead the horse to water.
Edit: Herding. Horses. Hah.
No, this is still true; while you have been attempting to insert your ideas into a discussion about your behavior, this discussion has never been about your ideas, only your behavior. Even my one concession to discussing your ideas, asking you to tally the numbers of comments presenting in the way you describe, was entirely said in support of the discussion of your behavior.
You’ve also continued not to engage in good faith, for example you’re now trying to present my staying focused on one topic of discussion as being somehow “cyclical” as a way to present yourself as above this discussion. You also attempt to characterize your admission that you were trying to manipulate me as “just a joke”.
To reiterate the point: the initial criticism is and remains absolutely accurate, by your own admission.
Words and context. Take from it what you will. Its apparent from your increasing focus on [your opinion of] me, despite my repeat attempts to get you back on topic, that you either lack the means to refute my points or simply are out of your depth. Its a distraction tactic.
In any case - I’d recommend either following through with your prior exit from this conversation or returning to the discussion about the subject matter. If I was interested in hearing baseless assertions about “me” I’d go read a horoscope.
And from these basic parts we derive all language.
While engaging with you here, the discussion has never been anything other than about my criticism of your behavior. I have never expressed an opinion of you beyond your behavior being that of a redditor (and criticisms of it stemming therefrom). Neither were my initial criticisms “baseless” - you confirmed they were completely accurate yourself. The focus has not increased, nor has there been an opportunity for you to guide me back on topic, because I have never departed from this topic - despite you repeatedly presenting new topics, which I have not engaged with as they are not relevant.
If you take a recounting of your behavior as somehow an expression of an opinion, I would suggest you modify your behavior so that when presented with it you do not feel the need to be defensive.
Again, my criticism of you has remained the only topic, and it has remained fully justified.
(Forgive me if there’s a delay in explaining this again, I’m going to go read a book for a while so I will not be checking my notifications for a bit.)
Your comment and logic falls flat when, in another thread, you’ve been speaking with me about the topic at hand without deviating into this cyclical psychoanalysis you’ve defaulted to where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter. If you dont want to engage on the root topic or the points I made along the way… That’s perfectly fine. That’s your opinion - but don’t tout it as some infallible fact when you can’t even remain consistent on your observations from thread to thread. Enjoy the book.
There’s been no psychoanalysis, cyclical or otherwise, occuring here. Simply a recounting of your directly observable behavior and the things you have said.
I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.
It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.
Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.
I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.
It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.
Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.
The response you are obsessing about was midway through our exchange where it had become comically apparent you’d become incapable of anything outside of this apparent “you you you.” In most debates - if you opponent needs to shift to personal attacks and comments on your as a person… They’ve lost.
Frankly, at that point you probably noticed a shift where I was simply having fun with the reaponses as I took you less seriously as time went on. And if I’m being honest, what reason have I to take you seriously? You are avoiding topic matter for whatever this broken record is. My “behavior,” as you put it, boils down to a differing opinion and willingness to discuss it openly. As mentioned before: ghastly behavior… Indeed. As this chain continues to highlight - I am open to discussing such things and you aren’t. Son, that’s not a me problem. I’d recommend a mirror… Or perhaps a book on debate. That’d at least make for a more interesting exchange. Presently I’m only getting mild amusement out of the broken record responses… And were veering dangerously close to that shifting to pity.
This isn’t a debate. I’m not attempting to persuade you. This is a discussion. I am criticizing you. I am discussing your initial and subsequent behavior that is self-evident in this discussion in a critical manner.
You cannot win, nor lose, a discussion - that just doesnt make sense - and that is in no small measure why I’ve refused to engage with you when you bring in unrelated topics to debate. Allowing a debate to expand from the initial topic could allow someone, acting in bad faith, to conflate the new debate topics and the initial discussion topic (my criticism) as being inherently linked, and thus imply they are points that someone could “win” or “lose”.
I have no interest in this discussion becoming a debate - I have made my assertions, have maintained those assertions consistently and those assertions have since been shown to be completely validated. There continues to be nothing that I need to add to that.