Contradictions of the modern popes
But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?
Reply
(08-16-2012, 03:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 03:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I don't so it to insult or castigate him.  I am genuinely concerned for TrentCath that he starts this thread claiming to want to discuss theology, but he can't honestly or politely interact over grammar.  That is not healthy.

Of course. I am concerned, too, which is why I said something and decided to get involved in a thread I didn't want much to do with. But helping him doesn't mean saying that he doesn't have any virtue at all. Maybe he doesn't, but we can't really know that from our forum interactions here. Help him by being a good example, not by stooping to his level.

Perhaps but you certainly do not help me by taking part in this ridiculous 'pile on trentcath' nonsense orchestrated only by those who disagree with me and who have from the very beginning of this thread, that is even before the behaviour they complained of occured, made it clear they could not engage in rational discussion but instead would engage in ad hominems, caricatures, strawmen and other sophisms.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:06 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?

Most? Would you care to substantiate that assertion? I could say the same thing about you or Jayne if I wanted to make such an assertion, but it wouldn't prove anything.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:06 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?

Most? Would you care to substantiate that assertion? I could say the same thing about you or Jayne if I wanted to make such an assertion, but it wouldn't prove anything.

Well, that is because it would be the "Tu Toque" fallacy, and I know how much you despise logical fallacies.  At least, when others engage in them.

Early on, people tried to engage you.  You insulted them, dismissed their arguments, and declared victory, even over non-existent points of grammar.  For some reason, this discourages rational discourse.  It is a mystery.

Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize.  I, for one, do regret any uncharitable things I have said to you; but I do not regret pointing out your bad behavior to you, whether you heed it or not.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:06 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?

Most? Would you care to substantiate that assertion? I could say the same thing about you or Jayne if I wanted to make such an assertion, but it wouldn't prove anything.

Well, that is because it would be the "Tu Toque" fallacy, and I know how much you despise logical fallacies.  At least, when others engage in them.

Early on, people tried to engage you.  You insulted them, dismissed their arguments, and declared victory, even over non-existent points of grammar.  For some reason, this discourages rational discourse.  It is a mystery.

Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize.  I, for one, do regret any uncharitable things I have said to you; but I do not regret pointing out your bad behavior to you, whether you heed it or not.

Again untrue, Jayne was the one who I responded to aggressively nand perhaps you.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:06 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?

Most? Would you care to substantiate that assertion? I could say the same thing about you or Jayne if I wanted to make such an assertion, but it wouldn't prove anything.

Well, that is because it would be the "Tu Toque" fallacy, and I know how much you despise logical fallacies.  At least, when others engage in them.

Early on, people tried to engage you.  You insulted them, dismissed their arguments, and declared victory, even over non-existent points of grammar.  For some reason, this discourages rational discourse.  It is a mystery.

Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize.  I, for one, do regret any uncharitable things I have said to you; but I do not regret pointing out your bad behavior to you, whether you heed it or not.

Again untrue, Jayne was the one who I responded to aggressively nand perhaps you.

And Scriptorum, and SaintSSebastian whose points you dismissed without discussion, which is likely why they have not bothered to continue.

My posts in this thread were originally pure curiosity; I wanted to know what point of grammar you were defending, honestly.  I though you were basing it on something, and I wanted to know what.  I didn't think you would be so aggressive over something with no point.  You proved me wrong, which has, honest to goodness, made me sad.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:22 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:06 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But again, all of this proves my point, rather than addressing the points of hand, even just for the sake of correcting others who might fall into the same 'mistake' you have simply made ad hominem after ad hominem, strawman after stawman, begged the question again and again, tried to create a caricature of me and turned the thread into a 'whine about trentcaths mean and unreasonable behaviour' thread.

TrenthCath.  In all honesty.  Does it not concern you that most threads you post in, no matter who else is posting, go this way?

Most? Would you care to substantiate that assertion? I could say the same thing about you or Jayne if I wanted to make such an assertion, but it wouldn't prove anything.

Well, that is because it would be the "Tu Toque" fallacy, and I know how much you despise logical fallacies.  At least, when others engage in them.

Early on, people tried to engage you.  You insulted them, dismissed their arguments, and declared victory, even over non-existent points of grammar.  For some reason, this discourages rational discourse.  It is a mystery.

Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize.  I, for one, do regret any uncharitable things I have said to you; but I do not regret pointing out your bad behavior to you, whether you heed it or not.

Again untrue, Jayne was the one who I responded to aggressively nand perhaps you.

And Scriptorum, and SaintSSebastian whose points you dismissed without discussion, which is likely why they have not bothered to continue.

My posts in this thread were originally pure curiosity; I wanted to know what point of grammar you were defending, honestly.  I though you were basing it on something, and I wanted to know what.  I didn't think you would be so aggressive over something with no point.  You proved me wrong, which has, honest to goodness, made me sad.

I checked over my posts and you were, as I suspected, wrong.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I checked over my posts and you were, as I suspected, wrong.

Maybe you answered them to your satisfaction, but all I saw was you dismissing their arguments, and they seemed to feel the same way.

And that you don't see anything wrong with the way you handled the grammar situation, again, disturbs me greatly.  Down to the fact that when INP agrees that you were behaving sub-optimally, you accuse him of "piling on."

*sigh*
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:33 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I checked over my posts and you were, as I suspected, wrong.

Maybe you answered them to your satisfaction, but all I saw was you dismissing their arguments, and they seemed to feel the same way.

And that you don't see anything wrong with the way you handled the grammar situation, again, disturbs me greatly.  Down to the fact that when INP agrees that you were behaving sub-optimally, you accuse him of "piling on."

*sigh*

No they simply weren't done in the way you claimed and I said that INP taking party in the pile on didn't help, the lengths you'll go to not to address the real issue is truly sad.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)