On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:15:18 -0600, somebody wrote:

> As
> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.

I told you what my point was.  It's not my problem that you don't accept 
it.  But let's do without the personal slurs, OK?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
>> your mind if proven wrong.
> 
> I said no such thing.

You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online 
discussion and that you don't see that happening.  You state your view as 
an absolutist view.  What exactly am I meant to think?

>> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of  my time.
> 
> See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.

I did, and I saw no need for you to decide what my intention was.  I 
stated what my intention was, and as I wrote to you up there, it's not my 
problem that you refuse to accept my explanation.

>> > 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.
> 
> Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
> argument? Is it the validation you seek?

I don't really care what you think any more.  I certainly don't need your 
validation for my reasons for not continuing to debate a moral/legal 
position that is different from your stated position.

Since you are determined to continue painting me as intentionally 
derailing "your" thread, you can have "your" thread back.

Enjoy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:
> I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
> to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
> trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As

	What gave you the idea he is "wasting time"? Are you suggesting you 
know in depth what he takes interest in and what he doesn't? And 
somehow, you know this better than, say, I?

	In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to 
argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something 
in it for you, presumably.

> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.

Translation: "The people in this newsgroup are too stupid at reading 
comprehension, so I must deign to inform them on what is going on 
regarding Jim Henderson".

	This isn't exactly the best forum to win points by playing the victim.

-- 
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a332193@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:

> In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to
> argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something
> in it for you, presumably.

I never said my time is too valuable to waste.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a33214f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> >> your mind if proven wrong.

> > I said no such thing.

> You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online
> discussion and that you don't see that happening.

Do you not see any difference between that and "not changing one's mind if
proven wrong"? Anyway, I won't press the matter any more. Even to me it's
starting to now look like waste of both our times.

Post a reply to this message