Colin wrote:
> Sorry, can't resist. The implication in this that the writer has seen the
> light, undergone the radical religous conversion and is now just too far
> above Doug's points to deem them worthy of refutation.
I do indeed consider Doug's "points" to not be worthy of refutation,
because they are formulated in such a way that there is seemigly nothing
to be gained, for either me or him or anybody on this list, from engaging
with them; they are attacks on strawmen. You think that there _is_ something
to be gained -- namely your own entertainment: _you_ would like to see
Doug's points "grappled and refuted or whatever". Well, I'll consider
providing you with entertainment, but you have make it worth my while.
How much are you paying?
-m
> Sorry, can't resist. The implication in this that the writer has seen the
> light, undergone the radical religous conversion and is now just too far
> above Doug's points to deem them worthy of refutation.
I do indeed consider Doug's "points" to not be worthy of refutation,
because they are formulated in such a way that there is seemigly nothing
to be gained, for either me or him or anybody on this list, from engaging
with them; they are attacks on strawmen. You think that there _is_ something
to be gained -- namely your own entertainment: _you_ would like to see
Doug's points "grappled and refuted or whatever". Well, I'll consider
providing you with entertainment, but you have make it worth my while.
How much are you paying?
-m