From: wally@wally.world.net
On 18/4/05 1:01, in article BE87E45D.1262C%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"
wrote:
> "Wally" stated in post
> BE8849A5.A1E2%wally@wally.world.net on 4/17/05 2:13 AM:
>
>
>>>>>>> As long as we do not pretend it is based on reason, I have no problem
>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt anyone could stop you pretending...what else do you have?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your insult shows a lack of understanding of my comment. Not
>>>>> surprising...
>>>>>
>>>> Wrt your comments I agree, not surprising at all.
>>>>
>>> No, it is not surprising that you are not able to understand comments
>>>
>> 'your' comments!
>
> Correct - we are in agreement that you can not understand my comments - even
> when my comments are expressing simple concepts. This shows a weakness in
> your ability to comprehend.
Or your inability to express yourself so others can understand you.
> I know you want to say you only have this challenge in the case of my
> comments, but that is absurd - though I suppose you could be so blinded by
> your admitted bias that you just are not able to see anything past it.
>
>
>
>>> You have answered in my case - but not in a general case. You keep dodging
>>> the question. As I said you would.
>>
>> And you say I have a comprehension problem?
>
> Yes: and we have agreed to that. You are unable to comprehend simple
> concepts, *at least* when you believe they are from me. In all likelihood it
> is not so focused.
Even simple concepts are difficult to understand when they have no basis in
fact!
>> "I have answered!, I have stated categorically that in your case I see no
>> problem with it, does it really have to be spelt out to you that in other
>> cases I may have a problem with it?"
>
> As shown from your reply - you did not even understand my comment... how sad
> for you. It does explain why we bump heads - you are not able to comprehend
> simple concepts.
>
> You will not answer the question in regard to the general case, only the
> individual case. This is much like your inability to answer questions in
> general about the law and claim you can do so only for individual laws.
So you are unable to work out that " does it really have to be spelt out to
you that in other cases I may have a problem with it?" is in reference to a
general concept.........you are joking ...right?
> So now, perhaps, we have found where your inability to comprehend comes from
> - you can not accept generalities and can only look at individual items. In
> other words, you do not understand many abstractions well.
>
> Now that we know where your weakness lies, perhaps you can work on improving
> yourself in this area instead of lashing out at others.
>
>
>
>>>>> You and I have agreed about her dishonest and despicable actions,
>>>>
>>>> No we haven't! Can you support your contention that I find Elizabot's
>>>> actions " dishonest and despicable"? ....I think not!
>>>
>>> You may not categorize them that way,
>>
>> So you made that up...thanks for the admission, but please stop doing it.
>>
>>> but you do agree about her actions.
>>
>> That they were " dishonest and despicable" no!
>>
>>> That is unless you are changing your position.
>>
>> Where have I said the actions were anything like " dishonest and despicable"
>> Not even close!
>
> Again you show a huge lack of understanding... at least you are being
> consistent. Please note, I comment on how you have *not* labeled her
> actions as dishonest and despicable" and you reply by asking when you *have*
> labeled them such.
That's marvelous Snit.... You actually say
" You and I have agreed about her dishonest and despicable actions, but then
you excuse them based on the fact that she did them against me. That shows
your lack of logic and rationality."
But you now say that " I comment on how you have *not* labeled her
actions as dishonest and despicable" ROTFLMAO
So let me get this straight when you say "You and I have agreed" you
actually mean 'I have never said or indicated" is there a 'Rosetta Stone'
Available to be able to decipher such post's from you Snit?
>
> At least you are right about your inability to comprehend simple concepts.
See above, is it any wonder when you spout such contradictory BS? LOL
>>>>> but then
>>>>> you excuse them based on the fact that she did them against me.
>>>>
>>>> Get a grip Snit, I don't need to excuse that which I do not have a problem
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> You do not have a problem with it *because* you excuse it - and your excuse
>>> is based on your bias... a bias you have admitted to having.
>>
>> Then why are you simply stating the obvious, that has been my position
>> consistently throughout this thread.
>
> So now we are in agreement that you are unable to comprehend simple concepts
> *and* that you have a bias against me.
I think I am getting the hang of this...." You and I have agreed" means that
no such thing has ever been said or inferred .....right? ROTFL
>
> Do you see where this weakens your position?
The only weakness I feel is in the stomach area, because of all the laughing
that your post make me do!
--
To Snit...
"You and I have agreed about her dishonest and despicable actions"
actually means...
"I comment on how you have *not* labeled her actions as dishonest and
despicable"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
