> Michael- > > If my sarcasm is so evident, perhaps you should stop referring to my posts > and lying about what I've written in the past. Your method of baiting, then > feigning innocence while feverishly attacking a straw man is intellectually > dishonest at best. > > You know exactly what you're doing and that's why I initially ignored your > posts. Discussing issues with you is not productive. > > Beyond sarcasm, > > Dan Hart > Lying? That's rather extreme, Dan. Anyway, why not simply support your claims with specifics (and I don't mean carefully edited examples, but rather the entire original) so that others on the list can judge without your interpretations mediating that judgment?
From this private post to me, I'd guess that you: A) feel abused by me; B) suspect that my 'underhanded' techniques of argument are having an impact on other members of the list; and C) are not sure how to overcome my arguments, so you're choosing not to engage me in public. Of course, I may be wrong about any or all of these conjectures.
Nonetheless, I think you've asked for engagement. Your confrontatory style and outrageous over-generalizations are not going to go unopposed in any intelligent forum. I'm sorry if you don't like my methods, but then again, I'm not really too fond of yours, so I guess we're even.
I'm going to post this reply with your message on the list.