25-08-2017, 06:43 PM
In other words, Mr. Trotter, what you--quoting Doyle used-- is not in the article at Kennedysandking.com.
And you utilize all of the sidestepping verbiage above to avoid admitting the following: I was right when I said there is nothing in the article that refers to PM. And you did not check the article before you wrote the following:
""There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM", if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect."
In your reply, you plaintively ask: "when did I say anything about Kennedysandking." Thereby avoiding the point that this is what I said, and you were directly quoting my statement, as is proven from the above pull quote. In fact, you actually headed your post with the rubric "There is not anything", so as to accent the idea that I was either wrong or lying about the article. Now, if you are going to do something as portentous as that, then you had better check in advance to see if you are correct.
You did not. Apparently, you were so eager to try and show that I was being deceptive that you decided to jump on without checking, as a pretext to attack me. Or what is even worse, you knew that my statement was true, and you then dragged in something that did not appear in the edited article to try and impeach me. But you then did not discern that fact for the reader. And then your tag team partner, Gilbride, jumps in and falsely accuses me on another account. Nice little network you guys have, sort of like the bad boy Gallagher brothers from the golden days of professional wrestling. But, like them, you are now shown to be a phony sideshow.
If the whole point of this phony Gilbride/Trotter back and forth is to spread the lunchroom encounter discussion outwards from where it should be--on that other thread--then it will not succeed, at least not with me. For the reasons that I stated in my original post. Which Mr. Trotter either failed to comprehend, failed to check, or perhaps deliberately distorted.
If the idea was to bait me into debating the whole PM issue, again, that will not work. And again, its because of the reasons I stated above and I repeat here: I won't take part in a debate which has become so polarized and angry that it has lost any semblance of rationality. And if you needed any more proof of that state of affairs, the latest Trotter/Gilbride stunt just provided it.
And you utilize all of the sidestepping verbiage above to avoid admitting the following: I was right when I said there is nothing in the article that refers to PM. And you did not check the article before you wrote the following:
""There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM", if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect."
In your reply, you plaintively ask: "when did I say anything about Kennedysandking." Thereby avoiding the point that this is what I said, and you were directly quoting my statement, as is proven from the above pull quote. In fact, you actually headed your post with the rubric "There is not anything", so as to accent the idea that I was either wrong or lying about the article. Now, if you are going to do something as portentous as that, then you had better check in advance to see if you are correct.
You did not. Apparently, you were so eager to try and show that I was being deceptive that you decided to jump on without checking, as a pretext to attack me. Or what is even worse, you knew that my statement was true, and you then dragged in something that did not appear in the edited article to try and impeach me. But you then did not discern that fact for the reader. And then your tag team partner, Gilbride, jumps in and falsely accuses me on another account. Nice little network you guys have, sort of like the bad boy Gallagher brothers from the golden days of professional wrestling. But, like them, you are now shown to be a phony sideshow.
If the whole point of this phony Gilbride/Trotter back and forth is to spread the lunchroom encounter discussion outwards from where it should be--on that other thread--then it will not succeed, at least not with me. For the reasons that I stated in my original post. Which Mr. Trotter either failed to comprehend, failed to check, or perhaps deliberately distorted.
If the idea was to bait me into debating the whole PM issue, again, that will not work. And again, its because of the reasons I stated above and I repeat here: I won't take part in a debate which has become so polarized and angry that it has lost any semblance of rationality. And if you needed any more proof of that state of affairs, the latest Trotter/Gilbride stunt just provided it.