From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 19/4/05 19:46, in article BE8A3D8F.12F39%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8ADB97.A584%wally@wally.world.net on 4/19/05 1:01 AM:   
   >   
   >>> Ok, this post is getting silly and long, so let's just cut to the chase:   
   >>>   
   >>> You have admitted you have a weakness in comprehension, at least* when it   
   >>> comes to my posts, even when* my posts are clearly and accurately written.   
   >>   
   >> Wow that's a surprise, you run out of steam and therefore dream up one of   
   >> your legendary ..."you have admitted......." posts which when put under any   
   >> scrutiny at all are found to have no basis in fact whatsoever!........how   
   >> tiresome of you.....but understandable!   
   >   
   > Do you now deny that you have admitted that you have are unable to   
   > comprehend my posts - even those that are clearly and accurately written?   
   >>   
   >>> You are not able to understand abstractions - for example dissuasions   
   >>> dealing with the law in general or morality in general.   
   >>   
   >> I have shown that I can differentiate between 'The Law' and 'A Law' and   
   >> apply the question of morality to each.   
   >   
   > Now, you have not.   
      
   Yes I have!   
      
   > You have clearly shown that you can not answer questions   
   > dealing with the law and general morality.   
      
   I have answered the "questions dealing with the law and general morality"   
   they may not be the answers that you desperately sought, but answered I did!   
      
   >  Here: prove me wrong, answer   
   > these two questions with clear answers - I understand that specific but rare   
   > situations my override the general case:   
   >   
   > 1) Is the act of breaking the law, by itself, something you consider   
   > immoral.   
      
   If by "the law" you mean a specific law, and I believed this law was a moral   
   one, then yes of course to break 'it' would for me be an immoral act   
   Regardless of who broke it, that's not to say that the offender would   
   necessarily consider it so !   
      
   > 2) Do you find it OK to take images from someone - without permission, edit   
   > them, and repost them to a public forum.   
      
   Difficult to say, at first glance I would say no, but there would be   
   occasions where this would not be the case, for example in the above   
   scenario, it is unclear whether the owner was deprived of the images, if so   
   of course robbery would be involved.....a specific law, or perhaps a   
   copyright infringement may be involved again a specific breach, was violence   
   used during the taking?   
   That of course is the problem in trying to answer specifically to such a   
   general question, do you have an example of your scenario that may help   
   clarify?   
      
   > I find it unlikely that you will give clear answers to either question, but   
   > now you have an easy way to show I am wrong.  Or prove I am right.  Enjoy!   
      
   Always!   
      
   >>> In both examples I have been happy to share my views which shows there were   
   >>> no trick questions.   
   >>   
   >> The fact that you ask a morality question wrt 'The Law' and yet cannot   
   >> accept that the answer can only be given wrt a specified law, otherwise the   
   >> answer must be taken as the equivalent to agreeing that in terms of morality   
   >> all laws are valid and equal, this idea is abhorrent to me, the fact that it   
   >> sits well with you may not be a "trick" but I fail to see how anyone with   
   >> any sense at all can agree to it.   
   >   
   > As I said: You are not able to understand abstractions.  As you say, when   
   > asked to answer simple questions that deal with abstractions you find your   
   > predicament "abhorrent".   
      
   A categorical answer to an abstract question is a very foolhardy thing to   
   entertain............ever!   
      
   >>> Since I often talk in terms of logic - an abstract discipline - this may   
   >>> explain your weakness in comprehension.   
   >>>   
   >>> We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's that   
   >>> are clearly dishonest and despicable,   
   >>   
   >> As far as I am concerned based on acknowledged facts, I agree that that   
   >> which Elizabot has agreed to is the entirety of her actions in this matter,   
   >> I apply no derogatory terms to her actions....period.   
   >   
   > You are also unable to finish a sentence before responding.  The full   
   > sentence is:   
   >   
   >     We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's   
   >     that are clearly dishonest and despicable, though you do not have any   
   >     problem with her actions and do not describe them as such.   
   >   
   > Please note that I acknowledge your lack of applying appropriate derogatory   
   > terms in the *very sentence* you are in response to.  If you had bothered to   
   > read a couple more sentences you would have seen I gave more detail.   
      
   Don't use terms that you know are not appropriate....easy!   
      
   >>> though you do not have any problem   
   >>> with her actions and do not describe them as such.   
   >>   
   >> Then why describe them as such when describing our 'agreement' as this   
   >> description is outside the boundaries of any agreement?.....can you not help   
   >> yourself?   
   >   
   > I will not describe them as something they are not.  Are you asking me to   
   > lie and *not* call her actions "dishonest and despicable"?  The fact that   
   > her actions are exactly that is not something I am interested in debating -   
   > the fact that you deny the clear truth (while admitting a bias) does not   
   > change the truth.  Do you think it somehow would?   
      
   To someone with the ability to reason ...yes! Because such a person would   
   not consider the fact that what they may think about a situation is somehow   
   made fact simply by the thinking....that I find to be unacceptable.   
      
   >>> You have, however, agreed that she took at least one image from my site,   
   >>> edited it by adding feminine hygiene products, and then reposted it.   
   >>   
   >> My agreement is superfluous as it occurred *after* her admission!   
   >   
   > I do not care when you accepted this part of reality.  The fact that you   
   > finally did is a good thing, do you not agree?   
      
   The alternative was for me to argue against Elizabot's admission, to do so   
   would have been a very stupid thing to do.   
      
   >>>  While this is clearly a dishonest and despicable action,   
   >>   
   >> Clear only to you it seems!   
   >   
   > Yet you have hinted that outside of your admitted bias it is clearly exactly   
   > what I describe.   
      
   Interesting that you claim that a "hint" can indicate anything " clearly   
   exactly" I always considered a "hint" to be merely a suggestion, another   
   indication perhaps why your understanding in this matter is so poor!   
      
   I can show where I have said that I cannot think of anyone within the ranks   
   of csma where I would consider Elizabot's actions to be as you describe.   
   You are lying if you continue to say otherwise, no surprise there!   
      
   >>> you admit that you have a bias that prevents you from seeing it that way.   
   >>   
   >> Of course I have a bias, but your obvious need to lie here can be seen in   
   >> the fact that I have stated that I would see the action in the same light no   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)