[at-l] On the cell phone argument

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 10:41 PM 8/20/2005 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/20/2005 6:02:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:
>Bullard, you seem to be sidestepping the question.
>
>Well, there's side stepping going on alright. I suggested that you respond
>to Shane with actual quotes and cite their sources. You did not. You still
>haven't. I really don't expect you ever will.
>
>             My question came first. It was relevant to the string of thought
>and progress of the discussion. I perfectly understand why it wasn't 
>answered.
>It most definitely has to do with "my not understanding" what you great
>people philosophers are saying.
>
>          I don't understand where you justify that tone that I am somehow
>failing the argument when you can't answer direct points. Might want to 
>follow
>your own advice...

Ah, the old 'I asked first' defense. Haven't heard that one since my kids 
were about 4 or 5.
Fact: Shane *did* present you with a direct quote that contradicted what 
you had said.
Fact: I suggested that the appropriate response would be another direct 
quote (with citation of its source so that others could verify it) which 
defended your interpretation.
Fact: You haven't come up with such quotes. Lots of excuses but no quotes.

That is sidestepping in my book.

The sad irony here is that Shane *gave* you a couple of MacKaye quotes that 
you could have developed into some semblance of a defence but you 
apparently didn't read that post well enough to pick up on them. You not 
only can't defend your position through your own knowledge of MacKaye's 
writings, you can't even do it when someone hands you the ammo. You just go 
on and on and on with the same old line. 'AT-L bad. I'm the lonely voice of 
wilderness amongst a bunch of AT haters.' Please give it a rest while you 
go and actually read for yourself. Please.