I guess Dan has been in multiple discussions of reparations, because his recent post doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the thread he bailed on here.
I'll simply point out, that if he is referring to the thread, I guess he feels it's appropriate to make thinly veiled accusations about people who he has banned from his blog.
It's interesting that he bailed on the conversation here, where his comments are freely published, to re locate it (and the soon to follow personal attacks by his pet troll), to a place where he censors disagreement.
As I said, If I'm going to listen to someone about reparations, I'll take Dan's advice and listen to Thomas Sowell, instead of Dan.
7 comments:
Fact 1. My post on reparations was not about you.
Fact 2. I haven't bailed on the conversation, there just was nothing left to say.
I pointed out your factual mistakes. I pointed out the your fault claim. I explained why it was a false claim - that of course I believe in transcendental truth.
I explained why was a stupidly false claim - That I never have said anything that suggests I don't believe in transcendental truth.
I've raised reasonable questions. All the questions have gone ignored.
I've answered your questions. None of that seems to matter, you just make the false claim and stood by it even when it was clearly a stupidly false claim.
I'm not bailing. There's nothing to address.
Do you think there's still something for me to address? In spite of the fact that you haven't answered any questions of your own?
Fact 1. My post on reparations was not about you.
Fact 2. I haven't bailed on the conversation, there just was nothing left to say.
I pointed out your factual mistakes. I pointed out the your fault claim. I explained why it was a false claim - that of course I believe in transcendental truth.
I explained why was a stupidly false claim - That I never have said anything that suggests I don't believe in transcendental truth.
I've raised reasonable questions. All the questions have gone ignored.
I've answered your questions. None of that seems to matter, you just make the false claim and stood by it even when it was clearly a stupidly false claim.
I'm not bailing. There's nothing to address.
Do you think there's still something for me to address? In spite of the fact that you haven't answered any questions of your own?
Fact 1. Did you not actually read the actual first sentence of my post?
Fact 2. You can dress it up any way you like, blame everyone else but yourself, the reality is you bailed and decided to move things to your safe space.
Fact 3, The fact that you’re double the repeated redundant repetitive comment here is virtually identical to your post leads me to believe that maybe fact number one isn’t really as much of a fact as you claim it is. But maybe it’s just a coincidence.
I have to say thank you, for saving me from having to answer the multiple, repetitive, redundant, questions in the last post. I thought I was going to have to, but you saved me.
Bailed on what? I answered ALL of your questions, even though they had nothing to do with the point of your post. You did not answer any of my questions.
I pointed out the fact that your claim is stupidly false. And yet it still remains.
I gave you a chance to explain what you mean by transcendental truth if you're not using the standard definition. You passed.
I gave you the chance to offer an example of what you believe to be a transcendental truth. you passed.
On point after point, I explained myself and established my facts. On point after point, you dodged questions, ignored reality, ignored facts, and decided to leave your post about truth with a stupidly false claim.
What is there for me to continue on with? How am I bailing?
Answer the f****** question or admit you're dodging. But don't just say nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.
Reparations questions answered.
Oh, the goalpost moving trick. You complain I didn’t answer your reparation questions, then change to a completely different thread.
You responded to a whopping three questions, and bailed without answering a follow up to clarify your vague response.
As soon as you do, I’ll answer your multitude of repetitive, redundant, random questions.
Apparently you don’t understand how things work when you aren’t making demands followed by threats.
I asked you to answer three questions, you ignored them and continued to ask, and ask, and ask questions. I politely made it clear that once you answered my three questions, I’d answer the multitude you asked.
I’m sorry you believe that answering, and clarifying three whole questions is so onerous. All you had time do was clarify one of your responses, but you bailed instead.
You could/should have continued by clarifying your vague and convoluted response. You then would have gotten the answeres you demand. But you chose otherwise. I guess, not responding to my request for clarification of your responses and choosing not to comment again would appear to be bailing to a neutral observer.
It’s a pattern, I expect it.
Post a Comment