Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   Incorrect. I get pissed off when people keep telling the lies even
> >   after
> > I have explained what I mean many, many times. Even after I have told
> > ten times "I didn't say that", people still keep at it again and again.

> That's just it:  You accuse others of *lying* when in fact the 
> restatement of what you've said isn't accurate.  It isn't that we're 
> LYING, it's that you're not being clear enough for us to understand, and 
> we're trying to clarify your position.  Then you start employing the 
> "liar liar pants on fire" defense and getting pissed off.

  You make it sound like you (and others) had written sentence in the form:
"Do you mean X? I disagree with that." Or: "I understood what you wrote as
if you were defending position X. I think defending that is wrong."

  Nope. Instead what has been being written was: "You claimed that X. That's
completely wrong." And not only once. Many times, even after me explaining
several times that "no, I did not claim that".

  So if I have responded several times already that "I did not claim that",
and even *after* that you still keep saying "you claimed X", then what else
is it than lying?

  If you misunderstood something I wrote, that's ok. When I later say that
what you interpreted was not what I was trying to say, the correct thing to
do is to stop saying "you claimed X" over and over.

  If you don't like being called a liar, neither do I. If you don't
acknowledge me when I say "I did not claim that", then you are, effectively,
calling me a liar, as you keep insisting that I made the claim.

> >> Maybe it's time for me to filter your posts again, because you take
> >> such an irrational approach to discussion.  But of course, you'll see
> >> that as some sort of insult, no doubt.
> > 
> >   If that makes you feel better, who am I to stop you?

> It doesn't make me feel better.  I like *reasoned* debate.  But when I 
> come up against someone who takes an absolutist position and then turns 
> around and accuses me of twisting what they said and then accusing me of 
> lying, when I'm actually TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, yeah, I get pissed off to 
> the point of saying "there's no point in continuing the discussion."

  I simply can't understand your rationale with the post filtering thing.

  I have been writing to this group almost daily, and I have hard time
believing that you find my thousands of posts irritating.

  In this one thread I happened to take a non-politically-correct stance,
and dared to defend it even under strong disagreement. Maybe I *am* stubborn
and irritating in this particular thread, and I can perfectly understand if
you don't want to continue a discussion which is going nowhere (something
I agree with).

  What does post filtering help here? It won't stop you seeing other people
quoting me. If the conversation continues with others, you will still see
my posts, or parts of them. Something which you didn't want to continue
doing in this thread. So wouldn't the sensible thing be to simply stop
reading the thread?

  Could you explain your rationale?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message