Quin wrote:Golden wrote:Quin wrote:Golden wrote:OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?
You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.
I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...
Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that
I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?
I reduced it to what it was. I'm cutting the bias out of it.
You aren't cutting the bias out of it. I have no bias against you at all. You are cutting the
facts out of it. So let me say what my point actually is in detail, rather than in summary.
My point is that you are not being intellectually honest, because there is a contradiction not only in the words but in the way you talk about them between the way in which you expressed how sig could be on the troupe through several posts, and then the way you went on to explain how strongly you believe sig is ishmael.
It's not a generic situation. I don't see any inherent contradiction between believing in a conclusion and discussing alternatives. I just don't believe that's what you were doing.
I don't believe you were 'discussing alternatives'. It reads to me like you thought you could throw a bit of mud at sig. You drilled down through several layers of that conversation, until I called you out and asked you if you actually thought he was bad, to which you replied that you did not. The whole conversation was pointless - it had no civilian aim from you. It wasn't 'discussing an alternative', it was 'dismissing golden's view that there is no chance sig is bad'. You didn't engage with my responses, you dismissed them. You only changed tack when I asked you a direct question, and then you used it to launch into something completely different, another way to smear sig, my using words such as 'case' and 'damning'.
It looked like you wanted to have your cake and eat it too.
Then you went on to attack me (misrepresentative, illegitimate, and telling civilians to say the same thing three times) - things which made me feel like you were more interested in discrediting me than simply defending yourself.
It's about your language, Quin. The words you actually used. The way you expressed yourself. It's not about a generic principle.