Re: Ping: Steve and Wally, can we end the "incest debate"... please?

In article <C052D9EF.4A3D7%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-7FF9EF.12514631032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/31/06 12:51 PM:

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."

There is nothing you have questioned that needs clarifying.

And you are making that decision on my behalf based upon...?

Snit, you stated you would be "happy" to make your position clear,
presumably for the people whose names you put in the title of this
thread. Does it really not occur to you that the judgement regarding
*my* clarity should rest with *me*?

Or are you too far past such an obvious concept? If you are TODAY... we
can revisit this another time... I'll understand... really.

Nor, of course,
have you been willing to speak of your own position - no matter how many
times you are asked. You are not conversing to make a point, you are doing
so to nit pick, troll, play semantic games, lie, and be a general pain in
the rump. I am responding to you to give you a greater chance to humiliate
yourself in that way. You have done a fine job.

You start a thread and tell the people you direct the thread to that you
are "happy" to make your position clear *for them*. Then, one of them
asked you some simple, pertinent questions in the pursuit of *his
clarification*. He finds that you are not only unwilling to answer his
questions, but you also insinuate that he is nit-picking, lying, flaming
and trolling etc. Then you tell him you are responding to give him a
greater chance of humiliating himself and he's already done "a fine job"
of it.

What's wrong with this picture?

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.

And note, Steve, you *still* refuse to talk about your position. No matter:
your position is clear


Yes, it is:

"...I will make my position clear as soon as you answer my questions and
we clarify your position for me."


Steve does not really have any views he can state - he just wants
to nit pick anything I say and show support for Wally.

Nothing you have stated has added one bit of useful and pertinent
information to this thread. Here is the the info that started this thread,
with commentary:

-----
Ok, the "incest debate" battle has started again. 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.

But you obviously aren't. Not only are you not "happy" to do this,
you're not willing.

Here are my positions on
the
"incest debate":

Please note that despite your lies to the contrary, I make my position
clear, below.

Another absolute erroneous statement from a guy who cannot stop himself
from continually making absolute erroneous statements.

As predicted you have not made your position clear, nor,
likely, will you.

Well, I said I would:

"...as soon as you answer my questions and we clarify your position for
me."

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.

Despite my stating this you *still* are asking me what my view is of the
relationship between incest and sex.

"Actually" I have it now... from another post today:

Tim Adams wrote:

"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."

You replied with:

"Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has
questioned that?"

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/35d08df112e61230
?dmode=source&hl=en

So, you have made your position clear... to you, "Incest IS sex". The
only question that remains now: Do you "actually" know all the meanings
of the words you used in conveying this information? For instance, do
you know what the meaning of the word "IS" is?


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.

You have not been able to show a single flaw or make a single correction in
my assessment of your view.

--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
.

Quantcast