03-14-2018, 06:41 PM
(03-14-2018, 02:03 PM)Dill Wrote: lol "misleading" as you "claim," but never have time to demonstrate. When Fred asks a rhetorical question, you accuse him of twisting your words, without ever explaining how he supposedly does that. Then you ask a rhetorical question and that is ok.
Fred stays on track when he argues an issue; his arguments are centripetal, pushing deeper into the subject. See 829 and 836 and 841 above, in addition to the post I just quoted. I could have "highlighted" any of those posts. I'd really have to look hard to find an insult in his posts.
As your posts captured above at 858 and 859 show, your "arguments" are centrifugal. They spin out into quipery and ad hoc personal attacks and unfounded accusations. You find "lying" and "sadness" and "dishonesty" everywhere. Barely 15% of your statements in both posts can be collected into something like an argument trained on a point Fred actually made. I don't blame Fred for his occasional, exasperated injunction to "educate yourself." That is about all the personal insult he has time for when he is arguing a point, if that is even an insult.
Capture 858 has an incipient argument in one line. The rest could be called simply "fluff" if there weren't so much ad hominem. You cannot show me a Fred post here or anywhere else in the three year history of this forum which is that empty, which uses so many lines to say so little. Yet you have posts like that on thread after thread. That is your signature tactic, to dismiss a real argument with a quip for every line--"Oh my!" To claim others are lying or have twisted your words. And to just claim. Nothing more.
And it is easy to multiply examples, and expand to other threads. No one is "cherry picking" and "pretending." The list of vacuous quips in 858 is a typical SSF post, and the extended argument captured in 860 is typical Fred. If Fred stops for a moment to express exasperation with how you argue, or fail to argue, your unclarity as well as the ad hominem, he is back on track in the next post--a real argument whose points you cannot or will not address--"I'm very stupid Fred."
This is the most nauseatingly obsequious and wholly inaccurate post I have ever read on this or the old board. Fred is infamous for deliberate obfuscation, straw man arguments, deliberate misstatement of the arguments presented to him and failing to actually answer questions directly. Seriously, though, it's been a rough day and you literally got audible laughter out of me with this post, so thank you very much.
