In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> >>>>>situation.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
> >>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
> >>>
> >>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
> >>
> >>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
> >>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
> >>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.
> >
> >
> > I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> > moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> > sorts of things.
> >
> > My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> > action?"
>
> That is an immature view.

Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things that
are entirely or wholly within their control. What I type is entirely
within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a
demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy
made me angry."

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

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>More either/or thinking.
>>
>>It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
>>dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
>>leads you into serious error.
>>
>>
>>>The rest of us see the death of
>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
>>>daily life and so on.
>>
>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
>>development.
>
>
> Indeed.

Yes.

> [snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo]

Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are
unable to engage in adult discussion because you're
stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level.
You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for
things for which you clearly do bear responsibility.
You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction
being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a
disturbed and damaged child's inability to share
control with others.

You're a mess.

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

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>More either/or thinking.
>>
>>It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
>>dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
>>leads you into serious error.
>>
>>
>>>The rest of us see the death of
>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
>>>daily life and so on.
>>
>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
>>development.
>
>
> Indeed.

Yes.

> [snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo]

Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are
unable to engage in adult discussion because you're
stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level.
You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for
things for which you clearly do bear responsibility.
You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction
being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a
disturbed and damaged child's inability to share
control with others.

You're a mess.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....
> >>
> >>C'mon man use your head.
> >
> >
> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
> > dilemma.
>
> It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word.

Of course, I'll let the bait slide. Wow, I am impressed with your
ability to manipulate. But then, most children have learned and mastered
this skill by the age of 5.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>>>>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>>>>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>>>>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
>>>>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>>>>>>>situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
>>>>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
>>>>
>>>>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
>>>>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
>>>>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.
>>>
>>>
>>>I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
>>>moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
>>>sorts of things.
>>>
>>>My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
>>>action?"
>>
>>That is an immature view.
>
>
> Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things that
> are entirely or wholly within their control.

It's much more than that, but that particular view of
it describes Skunky to a T!

> What I type is entirely
> within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a
> demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy
> made me angry."

That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the
idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of
events in which you play an integral role, leading to
an outcome you may consider "wrong".

Try to write something relevant.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>
> >>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>
> >>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> >>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >>You just did a complete 180.
> >
> >
> > No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.
>
> No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
> is without support; it's just dogma.

I've already discussed this. What you do to keep us communicating...

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>
> >>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>
> >>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> >>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >>You just did a complete 180.
> >
> >
> > No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.
>
> No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
> is without support; it's just dogma.

I've already discussed this. What you do to keep us communicating...

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .com>,
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
> >>>>>other
> >>>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>>>
> >>>>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >>>>decisive and significant.
> >>>
> >>>It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.
> >>
> >>Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
> >>option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.
> >
> >
> > No. They are examples of insignificant cause.
>
> Ipse dixit and incoherent.
>
> > An election is won based
> > on a variety of factors.
>
> No. An election is won based on ONE factor only: the
> winners getting enough votes to be declared the winners
> under whatever formula is used in that jurisdiction to
> decide the winner.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>
> >>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >>>
> >>>I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
> >>>attach to it is your issue.
> >>
> >>You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating
> >>points,
> >>so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.
> >
> >
> > I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.
>
> You have not. Quite the contrary, Ron. You repeatedly
> trot out bizarre interpretations of words and ideas
> just to stake out a strange position, and then you
> dogmatically refuse to consider any evidence that
> demonstrates your errors of reasoning and definition.
> You are the antithesis of curiosity.

I think you need to provide some support for your position.

Can you be specific on what "word" and what "definition" that you found
so bizarre.

> > In fact, I have started
> > several posts with that phrase.
>
> As if that proves anything. It's nothing but a
> rhetorical trick. In fact, we have come to learn that
> when you begin a passage "I'm curious...", what follows
> will invariably demonstrate rigid belief in dogma and
> misdefinition; in other words, the exact opposite of
> genuine curiosity. You are not curious.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .com>,
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
> >>>>>other
> >>>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>>>
> >>>>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >>>>decisive and significant.
> >>>
> >>>It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.
> >>
> >>Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
> >>option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.
> >
> >
> > No. They are examples of insignificant cause.
>
> Ipse dixit and incoherent.
>
> > An election is won based
> > on a variety of factors.
>
> No. An election is won based on ONE factor only: the
> winners getting enough votes to be declared the winners
> under whatever formula is used in that jurisdiction to
> decide the winner.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>
> >>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >>>
> >>>I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
> >>>attach to it is your issue.
> >>
> >>You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating
> >>points,
> >>so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.
> >
> >
> > I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.
>
> You have not. Quite the contrary, Ron. You repeatedly
> trot out bizarre interpretations of words and ideas
> just to stake out a strange position, and then you
> dogmatically refuse to consider any evidence that
> demonstrates your errors of reasoning and definition.
> You are the antithesis of curiosity.

I think you need to provide some support for your position.

Can you be specific on what "word" and what "definition" that you found
so bizarre.

> > In fact, I have started
> > several posts with that phrase.
>
> As if that proves anything. It's nothing but a
> rhetorical trick. In fact, we have come to learn that
> when you begin a passage "I'm curious...", what follows
> will invariably demonstrate rigid belief in dogma and
> misdefinition; in other words, the exact opposite of
> genuine curiosity. You are not curious.

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

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....
>>>>
>>>>C'mon man use your head.
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
>>>dilemma.
>>
>>It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word.
>
>
> Of course, I'll let the bait slide.

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.

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

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....
>>>>
>>>>C'mon man use your head.
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
>>>dilemma.
>>
>>It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word.
>
>
> Of course, I'll let the bait slide.

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.

Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:
> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
>>>>
>>>>You just did a complete 180.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.
>>
>>No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
>>is without support; it's just dogma.
>
>
> I've already discussed this.

No, you didn't. Your assertions now are becoming
blatant lies.

Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:
> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
>>>>
>>>>You just did a complete 180.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.
>>
>>No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
>>is without support; it's just dogma.
>
>
> I've already discussed this.

No, you didn't. Your assertions now are becoming
blatant lies.

> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
that
> > are entirely or wholly within their control.
>
> It's much more than that, but that particular view of
> it describes Skunky to a T!

Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
who's responsible for cds the farmers
cause?




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
> >>significance.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.
> >>
> >>Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
> >>its significance.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.
> >>
> >>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
> >
> >
> > Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
> > continues to engage me. Hmmm.
>
> More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
> adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.

You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
point that is based on your behaviour? You continue to find ways to
engage me -- a known homosexual.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
> >>significance.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.
> >>
> >>Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
> >>its significance.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.
> >>
> >>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
> >
> >
> > Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
> > continues to engage me. Hmmm.
>
> More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
> adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.

You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
point that is based on your behaviour? You continue to find ways to
engage me -- a known homosexual.

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

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.
>>
>>You have not. Quite the contrary, Ron. You repeatedly
>>trot out bizarre interpretations of words and ideas
>>just to stake out a strange position, and then you
>>dogmatically refuse to consider any evidence that
>>demonstrates your errors of reasoning and definition.
>>You are the antithesis of curiosity.
>
>
> I think you need to provide some support for your position.

I have, repeatedly.

>
> Can you be specific on what "word" and what "definition" that you found
> so bizarre.

"dilemma".

>
>
>>>In fact, I have started
>>>several posts with that phrase.
>>
>>As if that proves anything. It's nothing but a
>>rhetorical trick. In fact, we have come to learn that
>>when you begin a passage "I'm curious...", what follows
>>will invariably demonstrate rigid belief in dogma and
>>misdefinition; in other words, the exact opposite of
>>genuine curiosity. You are not curious.

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

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.
>>
>>You have not. Quite the contrary, Ron. You repeatedly
>>trot out bizarre interpretations of words and ideas
>>just to stake out a strange position, and then you
>>dogmatically refuse to consider any evidence that
>>demonstrates your errors of reasoning and definition.
>>You are the antithesis of curiosity.
>
>
> I think you need to provide some support for your position.

I have, repeatedly.

>
> Can you be specific on what "word" and what "definition" that you found
> so bizarre.

"dilemma".

>
>
>>>In fact, I have started
>>>several posts with that phrase.
>>
>>As if that proves anything. It's nothing but a
>>rhetorical trick. In fact, we have come to learn that
>>when you begin a passage "I'm curious...", what follows
>>will invariably demonstrate rigid belief in dogma and
>>misdefinition; in other words, the exact opposite of
>>genuine curiosity. You are not curious.

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

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>>>>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.
>>>>
>>>>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
>>>continues to engage me. Hmmm.
>>
>>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
>>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.
>
>
> You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
> point that is based on your behaviour?

Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is
merely juvenile insult.

> You continue to find ways to
> engage me -- a known homosexual.

And your point is?

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

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>>>>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.
>>>>
>>>>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
>>>continues to engage me. Hmmm.
>>
>>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
>>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.
>
>
> You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
> point that is based on your behaviour?

Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is
merely juvenile insult.

> You continue to find ways to
> engage me -- a known homosexual.

And your point is?

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>More either/or thinking.
> >>
> >>It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
> >>dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
> >>leads you into serious error.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The rest of us see the death of
> >>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
> >>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
> >>>daily life and so on.
> >>
> >>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
> >>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
> >>development.
> >
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> Yes.
>
> > [snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo]
>
> Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are
> unable to engage in adult discussion because you're
> stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level.
> You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for
> things for which you clearly do bear responsibility.
> You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction
> being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a
> disturbed and damaged child's inability to share
> control with others.
>
> You're a mess.

Again, an absence of examples to support the arm-chair analysis.

But thanks for making contact again.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >>>>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >>>>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >>>>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >>>>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >>>>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >>>>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> >>>>>>>situation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
> >>>>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
> >>>>
> >>>>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
> >>>>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
> >>>>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> >>>moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> >>>sorts of things.
> >>>
> >>>My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> >>>action?"
> >>
> >>That is an immature view.
> >
> >
> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things that
> > are entirely or wholly within their control.

My behaviour is within my control. A farmer or producer's actions are
within their control. Given the evidence of your attempts to control
Scented's behaviour through manipulation, I think it is your issue.

> It's much more than that, but that particular view of
> it describes Skunky to a T!
>
> > What I type is entirely
> > within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a
> > demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy
> > made me angry."
>
> That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the
> idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of
> events in which you play an integral role, leading to
> an outcome you may consider "wrong".
>
> Try to write something relevant.

Who is responsible when you type "homo", "stupid" or such words, Rudy?
Can we watch in amazement as you attribute your actions to some long
chain of events that abdicates responsibility for what is entirely in
your control.

Do you consider calling someone "stupid" right, wrong, or morally
neutral. Would you say this to your child? Would you say this a stranger
on the street? Would you say to a wife? How will you share
responsibility for your actions?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
>that
>> > are entirely or wholly within their control.
>>
>> It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>> it describes Skunky to a T!
>
>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
>who's responsible for cds the farmers
>cause?

You can't be responsible since they would happen
even if you didn't exist. But you do contribute to them,
regardless of the significance of your contribution. Also,
you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible
as a group, when you become a consumer.

Skunky wrote:

>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
>>>that are entirely or wholly within their control.
>>
>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>>it describes Skunky to a T!
>
>
> Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
> who's responsible for cds the farmers
> cause?

You share responsibility, but you keep attemting to
abdicate it.

Skunky wrote:

>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
>>>that are entirely or wholly within their control.
>>
>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>>it describes Skunky to a T!
>
>
> Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
> who's responsible for cds the farmers
> cause?

You share responsibility, but you keep attemting to
abdicate it.

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:
>>
>>

>>>>>The rest of us see the death of
>>>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
>>>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
>>>>>daily life and so on.
>>>>
>>>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
>>>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
>>>>development.
>>>
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo]
>>
>>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are
>>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're
>>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level.
>>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for
>>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility.
>>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction
>>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a
>>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share
>>control with others.
>>
>>You're a mess.
>
>
> Again, an absence of examples

The examples are in every post you make.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
>
> >> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
> >that
> >> > are entirely or wholly within their control.
> >>
> >> It's much more than that, but that particular view of
> >> it describes Skunky to a T!
> >
> >Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
> >who's responsible for cds the farmers
> >cause?
>
> You can't be responsible since they would happen
> even if you didn't exist. But you do contribute to them,
> regardless of the significance of your contribution. Also,
> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible
> as a group, when you become a consumer.

I can agree about the contributing, but
disagree about how willing I am. I feel
I have no veganic choices, so I buy
commercial oftentimes. I also try to
buy organic because I feel it's healthier.
There's nothing I can do to change the
farming industry and I can't expect to
grow my own food until I retire, so
I'm left with little choice. Do what
I can.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >>engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article t>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>>>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
> >>>continues to engage me. Hmmm.
> >>
> >>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
> >>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.
> >
> >
> > You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
> > point that is based on your behaviour?
>
> Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is
> merely juvenile insult.
>
> > You continue to find ways to
> > engage me -- a known homosexual.
>
> And your point is?

You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual
engagements.

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

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>>>My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
>>>>>action?"
>>>>
>>>>That is an immature view.
>>>
>>>
>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things that
>>>are entirely or wholly within their control.
>
>
> My behaviour is within my control.

Right. That behavior includes the choice of whether or
not to participate in a recurring chain of events that
leads to an outcome you supposedly decry.


> Given the evidence of your attempts to control
> Scented's behaviour through manipulation,

No evidence.

>
>
>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>>it describes Skunky to a T!
>>
>>
>>>What I type is entirely
>>>within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a
>>>demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy
>>>made me angry."
>>
>>That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the
>>idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of
>>events in which you play an integral role, leading to
>>an outcome you may consider "wrong".
>>
>>Try to write something relevant.
>
>
> Who is responsible when you type "homo", "stupid" or such words, Rudy?

I am responsible for the movement of my fingers across
the keyboard. You are responsible for the post you
write to which I reply. If someone were deeply
offended at the mere appearance of the word "homo", and
IF it was a given that I always replied to every post
you write by writing the word "homo", then you would
share in the offense taken by that person. This is
obvious: the word "homo" would always and only appear
in response to your posts. As far as that person is
concerned, you are causing the offensive word "homo" to
appear.

This is why insecure, easily offended people in usenet
regularly reply NOT to the person they consider the
troll, but to the person(s) they think cause the
provocation of the trolls: "don't feed the trolls".
If the case really does involve a troll - I, of course,
am not a troll - then they are CORRECT to direct their
unhappiness at the feeder of trolls.

You are fighting a losing battle, Ron. Shared
responsibility is just a fact of life. Do not
petulantly call that a "fallacy", Ron, because it isn't
one. There is no appeal to authority or appeal to
popularity or any other fallacy you might mistakenly
imagine. The concept of shared responsibility is a
well-developed, thoughtful, solid position.

wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control.
>>>
>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>>>it describes Skunky to a T!
>>
>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
>>who's responsible for cds the farmers
>>cause?
>
>
> You can't be responsible since they would happen
> even if you didn't exist.

No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility.
See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and
shared responsibility.

> But you do contribute to them,
> regardless of the significance of your contribution.

In other words, she shares responsibility.

> Also,
> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible
> as a group, when you become a consumer.

wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control.
>>>
>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of
>>>it describes Skunky to a T!
>>
>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one
>>who's responsible for cds the farmers
>>cause?
>
>
> You can't be responsible since they would happen
> even if you didn't exist.

No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility.
See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and
shared responsibility.

> But you do contribute to them,
> regardless of the significance of your contribution.

In other words, she shares responsibility.

> Also,
> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible
> as a group, when you become a consumer.

> 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.

Nope. No fear. No desire to take the
test. You are claiming fear in hopes
that that will goad me into taking the
test just to prove you wrong. Am I
right or am I right! (pun intended).


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> 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.

Nope. No fear. No desire to take the
test. You are claiming fear in hopes
that that will goad me into taking the
test just to prove you wrong. Am I
right or am I right! (pun intended).


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

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:
>>
>>
>>>>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
>>>>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
>>>point that is based on your behaviour?
>>
>>Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is
>>merely juvenile insult.
>>
>>
>>>You continue to find ways to
>>>engage me -- a known homosexual.
>>
>>And your point is?
>
>
> You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual
> engagements.

False dilemma.

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:
>>
>>
>>>>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
>>>>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the
>>>point that is based on your behaviour?
>>
>>Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is
>>merely juvenile insult.
>>
>>
>>>You continue to find ways to
>>>engage me -- a known homosexual.
>>
>>And your point is?
>
>
> You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual
> engagements.

False dilemma.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> Nope. No fear.

Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> Nope. No fear.

Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
>> > dilemma.
>>
>> Atta boy, nothin gonna change my world. There are dozens of websites on
>> logic that describe it, I only learned about it myself yesterday and I
>> understand it perfectly.
>>
>> Asking which of two movies, A or B, you liked better is not a false
>> dilemma,
>> it's just a question, made in good faith, without attempt to manipulate
>> you.
>> No dilemma, just give your opinion, any opinion will do. You could even
>> mention another similiar movie that you also liked, that would not be out
>> of
>> keeping with the question. Or you could respond that you don't like
>> movies
>> at all. It's all good.
>>
>> Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a
>> false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically),
>> so
>> you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict
>> me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy
>> or
>> admit to being a moron.
>>
>> Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does
>> not
>> create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one.
>
> I've spent enough time on this.

You will have spent enough time when you get it, up until that point any
time spent will have been wasted.

> But I'll leave it on this note. What is
> the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot?

The dilemma is that the way the question is phrased it implies that the
responder *is* one or the other, when in fact neither may be accurate.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
>> > dilemma.
>>
>> Atta boy, nothin gonna change my world. There are dozens of websites on
>> logic that describe it, I only learned about it myself yesterday and I
>> understand it perfectly.
>>
>> Asking which of two movies, A or B, you liked better is not a false
>> dilemma,
>> it's just a question, made in good faith, without attempt to manipulate
>> you.
>> No dilemma, just give your opinion, any opinion will do. You could even
>> mention another similiar movie that you also liked, that would not be out
>> of
>> keeping with the question. Or you could respond that you don't like
>> movies
>> at all. It's all good.
>>
>> Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a
>> false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically),
>> so
>> you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict
>> me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy
>> or
>> admit to being a moron.
>>
>> Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does
>> not
>> create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one.
>
> I've spent enough time on this.

You will have spent enough time when you get it, up until that point any
time spent will have been wasted.

> But I'll leave it on this note. What is
> the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot?

The dilemma is that the way the question is phrased it implies that the
responder *is* one or the other, when in fact neither may be accurate.

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

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
>>engagement and wrote:
>>
>>>It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
>>>dilemma.

Your use of dilemma is wrong, Ron. You are equivocating.


>>Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a
>>false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), so
>>you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict
>>me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy or
>>admit to being a moron.
>>
>>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does not
>>create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one.
>
>
> I've spent enough time on this.

ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have
misused the word dilemma every time, and because you
have proved unable to learn from your mistakes.