uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You are wrong in your use of the word dilemma, Ron.
>>>>You are engaging in a fallacy of equivocation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Wow, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate.
>>>>
>>>>On the basis of no evidence: I haven't engaged in
>>>>manipulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Give me what I want or I will rob someone.
>>>Give me what I want or it means that you are selfish.
>>>Give me what I want or you are afraid.
>>>Do what I want or I won't eat.
>>>
>>>Each are examples of how one individuals attempts to manipulate another
>>>into acting in a particular way. In all 4 examples, the originator of
>>>the statement is unable to accept a "no" for whatever is wanted.
>>
>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no
>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am
>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is
>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia.
>
>
> To assume to know her reasoning when she clearly indicates otherwise is
> projection.

No, it isn't. It's called piercing the veil.