From: wally@wally.world.net

On 21/4/05 14:52, in article BE8C9BC1.1343B%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
"Snit"  wrote:

> "Wally"  stated in post
> BE8D68F3.A7FD%wally@wally.world.net on 4/20/05 11:26 PM:
>
>>> I copied your actions and let you know, clearly, that is what I am doing. 
I
>>> even do so in reply to the post where you are doing so - and then you
>>> belittle my actions.
>>>
>>> Your actions are despicable and dishonest.  And, as I have shown, I have
>>> responded to your claims.
>>
>> I must have missed where you responded to the claims concerning your site!
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Ditto
>>>>
>>> We are still in the same place:
>>>
>>> You have admitted you have a weakness in comprehension, *at least* when it
>>> comes to my posts, even when my posts are clearly and accurately written.
>>
>> No! Never have! Like to support your position wrt *that* admission?
>
> I did fully respond: " you waffled, obfuscated, and ran from the question...

I answered the question.....

"Given that you are in clear reference to an actual event I am unable to
consider it a hypothetical scenario, and likewise given that the first two
lines contain errors serious enough to show that at least one contention of
yours ..... i.e.  "Person E digs through person S's site" is totally false,
your further accusations have to be treated in the same light."

In your next reply you again proved me correct admitting that it was...

"largely, if not wholly, based on the real situation in question"

With the obvious exceptions that I mentioned...

"....given that the first two lines contain errors serious enough to show
that at least one contention of yours ..... i.e.  "Person E digs through
person S's site" is totally false, your further accusations have to be
treated in the same light."

If only you had the ability to ask an honest question and accept the reply,
rather that trying to manufacture an answer, you would look foolish not
nearly as often as you do, I am sure it would still happen.....but not as
much!

> but you were not able to answer if you thought the actions in this
> hypothetical situation were moral or not.

Sure I did! The hypothetical which was obviously based on real events, as I
stated and you later admitted, contained errors serious enough to prevent me
from answering as a hypothetical, knowing full well that you would treat my
answer in a dishonest fashion and apply it to the real event, I simply could
not morally be a party to you doing that!

> Sure, the hypothetical situation
> was largely, if not wholly, based on the real situation in question... but
> without names you were not able to indulge in your admitted bias.  Once that
> is gone, your game is shot down."

Really?.....*S* & *E* was a remarkable way to disguise the identity of Snit
& Elizabot.......truly a masterpiece of disguise!  LOL

>
> I realize that is not the answer you were hoping for - you want me to accept
> your obfuscations and pretend I do not notice you changing the topic.
> Forget it, Wally, I am not playing your silly games where you answer
> questions with off-topic questions and simply hope I do not notice.

Who brought in the hypothetical?......YOU
Who tried to get back OT..........ME (you do remember what the OT was?)

>>> You are not able to understand abstractions - for example discussions
>>> dealing with the law in general or morality in general.  In both examples I
>>> have been happy to share my views which shows there were no trick
questions.
>>> Since I often talk in terms of logic - an abstract discipline - this may
>>> explain your weakness in comprehension.
>>
>> No! All you have shown is your inability to differentiate between 'The Law'
>> and 'A Law' at least you are consistent as you have always shown that lack
>> of ability, unfortunately you have now expanded that concept to show that
>> you cannot differentiate between 'Posters' and 'A Poster' a very disturbing
>> development!
>>
>> 
>> Wally...
>> " The fact that you ask a morality question wrt 'The Law' and yet cannot
>> accept that the answer can only be given wrt a specified law, otherwise the
>> answer must be taken as the equivalent to agreeing that in terms of morality
>> all laws are valid and equal, this idea is abhorrent to me, the fact that it
>> sits well with you may not be a "trick" but I fail to see how anyone with
>> any sense at all can agree to it."
>> ================
>
> There is nothing in my question about all laws being valid and equal.  As I
> stated "You are not able to understand abstractions - for example
> discussions dealing with the law in general or morality in general.

There is your problem in a nutshell, you simply cannot ask a person a
question about 'the morality of breaking the law' and expect them to lump
ALL laws under the umbrella of 'The Law' to do so is to ask them to ignore
the morality as they see it of each and every law.
You can categorically say that breaking 'The Law' is an immoral act, that's
your choice, but as far as I am concerned if you cannot differentiate
between them then you are saying that in a moral sense all laws are equal,
but I would be surprised if you cannot on your own envisage a situation
where breaking a law is not an immoral act in your view, if you can then
that is at odds with your contention that it is immoral act to break the
law!

>  In both
> examples I have been happy to share my views which shows there were no trick
> questions.

I have stated that it may not be a trick, but if not in my view it makes no
sense!

> Since I often talk in terms of logic - an abstract discipline -
> this may explain your weakness in comprehension."

Nice term! I can see why you are fond of it, but I much prefer to make a
statement and then support it, very basic but when dealing with a specific
incident it still works well.

>>> We both have agreed about at least some of the actions of Elizabot's that
>>> are clearly dishonest and despicable,
>>
>> I don't see how, as I don't recognize ANY of her admitted actions as "
>> dishonest and despicable"........more delusions?
>
> You are responding to half a sentence - read the whole thing.

Had I done so I need not have responded at all, as the second part disproves
the first part......I never considered that that was your intention...is
this a sample of the  "logic - an abstract discipline" that you speak of?

First you say that we are in agreement "about at least some of the actions
of Elizabot's that are clearly dishonest and despicable,"

And then you state " though you do not have any problem with her actions and
do not describe them as such"

It's extremely hard to see where this "logic - an abstract discipline" has

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)