From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 18/4/05 21:11, in article BE890007.12AF4%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE89792E.A3C8%wally@wally.world.net on 4/17/05 11:46 PM:   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > My ability to communicate is not in question.  You can try to change the   
   > topic, but I will not bite.   
      
   In a two way discussion you dismiss your ability or lack of it to   
   communicate?  LOL   
      
   >>> 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!   
   >   
   > Again you are trying to change the topic, but you are simply incorrect.   
   > Most people *are* able to understand abstract concepts.  You have shown you   
   > can not, with the examples being your inability to abstract in regards to   
   > the law or morality.   
      
   No doubt this has escaped your attention but we were discussing real events   
   with real people.....but you just carry on with your abstract concepts. LOL   
      
   >>   
   >>>> "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 you *may* have a problem with it in the general case.   
      
   That is correct...well done!   
      
   > Who would be allowing or disallowing you to have a problem?   
      
   Oh Dur!.......The circumstances surrounding that particular case would   
   determine my agreement or otherwise, you will have to realize one day that   
   unlike you some of us are able to look at each case and judge it on its   
   merits, you may be content to make blanket statements and then try and   
   manipulate the facts to try and make your decisions look as though they were   
   rationally arrived at.......but you don't fool anyone, you're far too   
   transparent.   
      
   >  Why can you not be more specific?   
      
   What would you like me to do?.... suggest a possible scenario and answer wrt   
   that!......sorry not an option.   
      
   >  Do you or do you not have a problem with people taking other's   
   > images, altering them in ways designed to be offensive, and then reposting   
   > them?   
      
   How many fscking times must I repeat.....in your case I find what happened   
   as humorous as you clearly did at the time, just as humorous as you now   
   deciding that you are offended, ask me in 12 months time and I will still   
   find it humorous. But no doubt you will have flip flopped several times by   
   then.   
      
   >  What variables do you consider in your decision making?   
      
   That's for me to know and for you to change topic over.....oh look that's   
   just what you're doing.   
      
   > You and I both know you will not be able to answer the question.  You are   
   > not able to think in such abstract terms.   
      
   LOL   
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Again you and I have agreed on the actions.  The fact that you fail to see   
   > her actions as dishonest and despicable is irrelevant to the fact that they   
   > are.  Remember this comment of mine, still quoted, above:   
      
   So you lied when you referred to our agreement over the term "dishonest and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)