NUR wrote:   
   > There is no difference.    
      
   Wow. So you honestly cannot discern a difference between   
   (a) being willing to do X,   
   (b) currently doing X, and   
   (c) having already done X?   
      
   If so, then you have a profound difficulty with basic reasoning.   
      
   Consider the analogy I previously gave, which you snipped: I am willing to   
   meet you in the suburb called Mermaid Waters. Do you think that means we have   
   already met there, or that we are currently meeting there?   
      
   NUR wrote:   
   > Gaslightonovskian equivocation   
      
   It was not equivocation, but I thank you for bringing back the totally awesome   
   Gaslightonovsky terminology.   
      
   NUR wrote:   
   > which reinforces the original point   
   > I made and establishes collusion.    
      
   Not really. I appreciate that you are easy to frustrate, intellectually. And   
   I’m sure there have been Baha’is, Duginists, and/or Zionists who have made   
   you feel intellectually frustrated. But that does not mean everyone who   
   befuddles you is therefore    
   colluding with one or more of those forces.   
      
   NUR wrote:   
   > contact Paul Andrew Hammond    
   > and find out what has happened    
   > to him    
      
   Clear writing requires clear thinking, Nima. How is that man’s (alleged?)   
   legal woes relevant to our disagreements? I doubt you can articulate what   
   you’re grasping for; rather, you seem to be just flailing your arms at this   
   point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)