Jeff, do you actually expect me to believe that your references to “some people wear tin foil over their heads” and “Me thinks he doth protest too much (meaning the weight of the baggage must be immense)!” are not references to me, but to Guy? And, you expect me to believe that such references are not insulting and that you didn’t intend them to be insults? Your contention is so ludicrous and silly as not to warrant a serious reply.
I see that I should have explained why I wrote that our discussion was sinking into nonsensical, childish outbursts. I’ll try to rectify that error.
When I accused you of hypocrisy, I set out the factual foundation and explained why I thought your behavior was hypocritical. You, on the other hand, resorted to name calling and trite phrases. Such tactics, without foundation, are nonsensical, and the type of tactics you’re likely to see on a playground during an argument between six year old girls.
In my posts I tried to avoid irrelevant accusations, and I endeavored to be truthful. On the other hand, you accused me of not having added “useful content to the discussion”. Your accusation is nonsensical in three respects: (1) it’s irrelevant, (2) it’s false and (3) it takes just a few seconds to review the posts in these threads to show that your accusation is false. I mean, it’s bad enough to lie to make an irrelevant point, but to do so when the truth is so easily discerned, well … that just don’t make a lick of sense. Such a tactic is something I might expect of a child, not a mature person.
You wrote “And...you'll notice George actually came and joined LuLa (which I think is a good thing).” This statement is nonsensical in as much as it’s irrelevant and it’s a complete mystery who is this “George” to whom you refer.
In my posts I did not mischaracterize what you wrote. You, on the other hand, as noted previously, intentionally and quite obviously mischaracterized what I wrote. It is impossible to make sense of such mischaracterizations. Moreover, intentionally mischaracterizing what someone writes or says is another tactic I might expect on a playground, but not in a debate between mature, sensible adults.
Let me make another attempt to put this debate on a more productive course. I’ve already noted where you accused a couple of guys of being shills and calling them “putz”. I did so for a couple of reasons. One was to illustrate your inconsistency. Another reason was that I hoped to awaken some empathy on your part regarding your treatment of others. Perhaps this second aspect wasn’t as apparent as it could have been, so I’ll try again:
Jeff, how would you have reacted if, after you accused these guys of being shills, someone had posted a comment similar to your “tin foil” post directed at me, but it had been directed at you?
If you’re honest with yourself, I think we both know that your response would have been a little less restrained than my reaction to your post, to put it mildly.
Jeff, please indulge me one request: Please don’t react to this post in haste and anger. Let it sit for a few days, or however long it takes for your anger to subside, so you can reevaluate this debate with a little detachment. I really think you’re trying to defend the indefensible, but if after such reevaluation you still feel as you do now, then let’s just agree to disagree.
(By the way, Jeff, my name is “Dean”, not “bud”. However, if you like, you may call me “bud” or Schlitz, or Old Milwaukee. Some of my favorite beers, however, are made by Stone Brewery and Dogfish Head Brewery. Being called ”Stone” might be okay, too, although I’m not so sure about “Dogfish Head”, but it could grow on me.