Censorship by mob rule

[Angakuk]

Thanks, mick.

I challenged you on the first, and you defended it by asserting the second. Did you make the switch deliberately or was it an honest mistake? Do you still stand by the first or are you quietly dropping it in favour of the second?

There is no switch. The second explains the first.

ShottleBop is correct.

Angakuk is trying to use the same all purpose ad hominem to cover the holes in his arguments that vm, seebs, and Chuck have tried to use. He's effectively admitted that he is arguing in bad faith, and his defence is that he is only doing what I do. That isn't true which is why neither he nor the others can justify it with any evidence.

So he has claimed that no evidence is required because my making the claim that I am arguing in good faith is itself grounds for asserting that I am not.

This is simply incorrect. I did not assert that your making the claim that you are arguing in good faith is itself grounds for asserting that you are not. My assertion was that the fact that it is you making the claim is sufficient reason to not accept the claim. The second assertion (i.e. that you have, in the past, demonstrated an inability to argue in good faith is sufficient grounds for rejecting your claim...) is an explanation of the first assertion. In other words, the fact that you are who you are (i.e. this person who has demonstrated an inability to argue in good faith) is sufficient reason to reject your claim that you are arguing in good faith. To put it a little differently. I do not believe your claim that you are arguing in good faith because, based on your posting history, I do not believe that you would recognise an argument made in good faith if it came up and bit you on the ass.

Agreed?

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, I agree entirely, Angakuk.

[Angakuk]

Of course you do, godfry.

[mickthinks]

The second explains the first.
Maybe so, but in that case the second would be the reason, and the first would not be a reason in itself. 'In itself', in the original context you used it*, was clearly intended to mean that no other explanation was necessary. Your subsequent 'explanation' is therefore a switch.

I did not assert that your making the claim that you are arguing in good faith is itself grounds for asserting that you are not.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That you have made the claim is itself a reason to not accept it.

LOL Talk some more crap, why don't you?

Mick
* that was, a denial that you needed a reason to refuse to accept my claim.

[Plant Woman]

You know sometimes we have to learn in life that you just have to let things go.

This is a good example of one to let go. You've spent far too much energy on it, and yet you seem to keep coming back around that circle like a dog chasing his tail endlessly.

Seriously, you are never going to resolve this issue to your satisfaction, so why waste the energy?

[mickthinks]

LOL I'm afraid you're just not a credible source of unbiased advice, PW. So why waste the energy?

[Plant Woman]

No energy wasted here, just making an observation and a suggestion. If you choose to continue on, it still remains your problem, I don't make it mine.

[Doctor X]

He is on the rag again, I see.

--J.D.

[mickthinks]

... it still remains your problem, I don't make it mine.
I think the poor quality of argument ("that you have claimed to have asked the question in good faith is the reason I don't have to answer it") that some leading members of think they can get away with, is a problem for all of us. I could use your help, but instead I get your snide sniping from the sidelines.

Siding with Ang here is like a vote for bullshit.

[ChuckF]

Yeah, I think it's just amazing you don't have legions of little helpers, all trying to solve this problem for all of us.

[mickthinks]

Would that be irony, MockF? Well, what a surprise ...

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Would that be irony, MockF? Well, what a surprise ...

BAD FAITH!11!!! BAD FAITH!!!1 CALL THE INTERNET POLICE oh he's already here.

wtg on identifying irony. You get a little better at this every day. A little.

[mickthinks]

And you get a little worse.

[ChuckF]

Not bad!

[mickthinks]

Er ... thanks, Chuck. But it's not supposed to be a competition. It's supposed to be a cooperative exchange of ideas.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Er ... thanks, Chuck.

You're welcome.

But it's not supposed to be a competition.

Uh, ok. Good unsolicited affirmation, or whatever.

It's supposed to be a cooperative exchange of ideas.

Definitely.

[Doctor X]

"I'm sorry, Wendy, but I don't trust anything that bleeds for five months and doesn't die!"

--J.D.

[Naru]

I am really curious as to what mick thinks is going to happen if he keeps doing this for long enough

[mickthinks]

Doc X, then Chuck, and now Naruto his catamite...

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Siding with Ang here is like a vote for bullshit.

And so, as if by prior arrangement, the supporters of the Bullshit 2008 campaign gather and start to cheer and wave for their team.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Doc X, then Chuck, and now Naruto his catomite...

lol if you're going to try to act smart, you should try to spell "catamite" correctly.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Doc X, then Chuck, and now Naruto his catomite [sic]...

[mickthinks]

LOL Thanks Naruto I guess I was thinking of

Kattomeat

And you and Chuck are in no doubt about the relationship, I see

[ChuckF]

Naruto is my favorite lolcatomite.

[ChuckF]

BTW mickthinks I am LOVING your idea of a cooperative exchange of ideas.

At first I didn't think it had lulz in it, but it turns out it does!

[mickthinks]

BTW mickthinks I am LOVING your idea of a cooperative exchange of ideas.
No this is just bullshit. Perhaps you can't tell the difference?