In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> 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.

Why did you let him sodomize you with a broom, Rudy?