On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> 
>> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
>> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
>> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
>> > stated inflexibilities.
> 
>> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
>> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing 
your mind if proven wrong.  That's what's called (in my book) a waste of 
my time.

I don't tend to spend my time trying to change people's minds when 
they're not open to having their opinions changed.  That tends to be a 
futile exercise, and not worth me wasting my time on.

Unless I'm bored, that is.  I've got too much to do now to engage in such 
a discussion.

>> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original
>> > discussion....
> 
>> My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly
>> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
>> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
>> pointless.
> 
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> validity of any arguments I make.

Of course it doesn't.  But it does play into whether or not I want to 
spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.  It's my time 
I'm concerned about, not yours. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message