Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:46:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 9:15:35 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
>

Earth to George Dance:

>
Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be
MMP.

>
That's a popular expression, George.  Have you really been ignorant of
it for the past 40+ years?

I'm also sorry you missed the joke, though not surprised given your
sense of humor. I was alluding to your practice of, not just posting
exclusively through socks, but constantly changing them in the middle of
"discussions" to pretend you have more "allies" on your side. (Back when
you were posting on aapc, you used to use at least as many sock puppets
as you had meat puppets.

You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.

>
Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter
if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your
repeat posting of it.

>
It's what's called a "straw man" argument, George.  You intentionally
take my statements out of context, delete said context from the quoted
passages, then recast my actually words to mean something other than I'd
intended; simply so you can successfully argue against it.

Wrong, Peabrain. A "straw man" is arguing against statemtnts you haven't
said. You're complaining about me addressing statements you have made,
but buried within a paragraph in which you're discussing something else,
in the hope you can smuggle it through without challenge.
(A "statement" is not the same thing as a sentence, BTW. If you write a
sentence  like -
"Your poetry is technically brilliant, and Pickering was a  pedophile,
and Will is a pedophile, and Zod is a pedophile, and Jordy is a
pedophile, and Ilya's a pedophile, and Antti is a pedophile, and, but I
rally don't enjoy reading your poems."
- each conjunct in that srntence is a separate statement, and it does
not change your meaning to address each one separately).

That's hardly any way to conduct a civil, and/or mature, discussion, but
sadly it's the only thing you've got.

LOL! And just what makes you think, that after more than a decade of
knowing how you "argue", that I'd even try to have a civil and/or mature
discussion with you? I've tried that too many times in the past, and let
you get away with too much in the process.

You may *think* you can,

>
- or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being
paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that
(which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me
what I think, and say something about the subject.

>
The subject was that you present "straw man" arguments by intentionally
taking my words out of context.

So let's talk about that. Take the sample sentence I've given you. If I
object to your claim that, say, "Jordy is a pedophile", and your only
response is to response is that's a "strawman argument" because I *may*
think I changed your meaning (when I obviously haven't), that's does
nothing to address the objection. The name for that is a "red herring"
or, as it was more commonly known on aapc, a "deflection."

I have been led to the conclusion that you think that restating
something I've said out of context somehow changes my original statement
as well, because I cannot find any other reason for your behavior.

 It doesn't change the meaning of either "statement", Lying Michael -
neither the statement I took out to challenge, or the mass of text in
which you originally buried it.

Since my original statement is always preserved in its proper context
just a post or two above, only someone with the intellect of a turnip
would think that he could get away with it.  And when he has been caught
doing it every time, and still persists in doing so, it follows that
according him a turnip level IQ may have been a wee bit generous.

Actually, your "original statement" is usually preserved more than once
because (again going back to the hypothetical example) if one of the
middle conjuncts of your sentence is challenged, you'd tend to respond
like this:
GE: "What's your evidence that Jordy is a pedophile?"
MMP: You're taking my words out of context again, Dishonest Dunce. What
I said was: ""Your poetry is technically brilliant, and Pickering was a pedophile, and Will is a pedophile, and Zod is a pedophile, and Jordy is
a pedophile, and Ilya's a pedophile, and Antti is a pedophile, but I
rally don't enjoy reading your poems."
My only options would be to ignore all your middle conjuncts, and let
intelligent readers think they're all true because i'm not challenging
any of them; or to challenge them, and have you keep repeating them in
(as above) to convince your more stupid readers that they must be true
because they've heard them so often.
snip