Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- From: Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:51:46 -0700
In article <C052CC09.4A3BC%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-1F74FC.11581631032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/31/06 11:58 AM:
In article <C0520987.4A314%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-2F00A2.22095630032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/30/06 10:09 PM:
In article <C051D669.4A2DF%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok, the "incest debate" battle has started again.
No battle... just some unanswered questions by you.
1 - Are you now denying that incest is a "sexual activity"?
It appears that you are. Can you clarify this with a simple yes or no
answer?
2 - Are you still abiding by the previous definition that you provided
me for the word "sex" when I asked you for it... the definition which
defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
It appears that you are. Can you clarify this with a simple yes or no
answer?
I am curious if you are
willing to make your positions clear and are willing to make your *view*
of
my position clear. I am happy to do that for you.
Great, then answering my questions above shouldn't be a problem for you.
So there is no confusion or overlapping data, I will make my position
clear as soon as you answer my questions and we clarify your position
for me. Glad you started this thread and are now willing to be so
helpful!
Here are my positions on the "incest debate":
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" in this debate
comes from my comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
And my view of Wally's views:
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
And my view of Steve Carroll's views:
Steve does not really have any views he can state - he just wants
to nit pick anything I say and show support for Wally.
Do either of you have any corrections to make to that? If I do not
understand your positions clearly please correct the above.
Nit pick? That doesn't sound like you want to be helpful. I am looking
for you to clarify your position for me by answering a couple of simple
questions. You said you were happy to make your position clear for me up
above... if this is true, you will provide me the simple, one word
answers I seek that will clarify your position for me. Thanks for your
offer of help. I look forward to your answers.
Note: Steve offered no correction for my view of his nor did he state his
view about mine. He did ask two questions; one that has a clear answer in
the very post he responded to and the other that is complete nonsense
until
or unless he specifies what definition he is in reference to. Likely he
is
waiting for me to answer his unspecified question so he can point to some
nit pick based on different definitions he has.
In other words Steve supported my stated view about him. I have made my
position clear.
In your opening paragraph of this thread you stated that you were
"happy" to make your position clear, presumably with the intent of
clarifying it for the people whose names you have placed in the title of
this thread. That was apparently not true. Yes, I'd say you have made
your position extremely clear... this thread was a farce and you were
lying about being "happy" to clarify things for me.
Steve, are you able to understand it or will you continue
to nit pick, lie, flame, and troll?
As you haven't yet proven that my asking you some simple, pertinent
questions (pertinent to *my* clarification - a thing you said you were
"happy" to do for me) is 'nit picking', 'lying', 'flaming' or
'trolling', your question is a non-starter and as disingenuous as the
rest of your effort here. In any event, I thank you for once again
putting this type of activity into the google record.
Again, Steve, my position is very, very clear and is stated above.
Yes, I have already acknowledged that your position is clear:
"...this thread was a farce and you were lying about being "happy" to
clarify things for me."
So, Steve, care to comment on *your* position? Do you have any corrections
of my comments about your view?
As you have no intention of fulfilling your disingenuous claim there is
nothing left to say. Any statements you make regarding my view will
obviously be just as disingenuous as your actions shown in this farce of
a thread... as to be expected from a person doing what you have just
shown you are willing to do. Thanks for making everything crystal clear.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
.
- References:
- Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- From: Steve Carroll
- Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- From: Steve Carroll
- Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Some images I played with
- Next by Date: Re: Firewire Giving Ground In Consumer Space
- Previous by thread: Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- Next by thread: Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
