Amazing that I've never claimed to be able to do that, and none of my refutation of your post relies on any such omniscience, and yet you make the accusation anyway.
Are you trying to distract attention from the fact that you're not going to specifically address any of my points? Is so, it's not working.
Even when a statement might be read more than one way, you always know the intent of the author.
You mean like *you* did when you made wild presumption about PatrickHenry's motives for deploying his ping list, despite having no grounds for your conclusion?
If you think I've leapt to any conclusion as egregious as that one of yours -- if you feel that I have made any conclusion that was not a reasonably supportable one -- feel free to make a case for it by quoting me and then arguing why you think so.
Until then, your unsubstantiated and rather bizarre broadside will be taken as the cheap evasion it appears to be -- an excuse to hand-wave away my entire point-by-point post, instead of dealing head-on with the points I've made.
Furthermore, if drawing a conclusion about an author's intent is some sort of arrogant presumption of being a mind-reader, what are we to make of *your* performance in presuming to know the various authors' intents when you chose their posts as "examples" of specific tactics for your list, most of which involved specific scenarios of motivation? Hm? You can't have it both ways. If it's out of line for *me* to draw a conclusion about someone's intent, then it's equally out of line for *you* to do so as you have done so frequently on this thread. You don't want to be a blatant *hypocrite*, do you?
And the way you change the meaning of words and terms on a dime is quite a talent as well.
If you think you can make a case for me having done so in any particular case, feel free to quote where you believe I have done that, and make your case.
Until then, you're just flinging poo like an ill-trained simian.
I guess you can't ever lose an argument when you can redefine the thoughts and words of others so that you make yourself believe they agree with you.
I guess you can't ever lose an argument when you resort to generalized unsubstantiated broadsides as a substitute for dealing on a point-by-point basis with what people have written to you.
The astute reader will note that darbymcgill's childish outburst of insults (the whole post) would serve as a generalized broadside against almost *any* post, by *anyone*, on *any* topic. None of its accusations are tied to anything I've actually written -- no examples are given, no case is made. It's so nonspecific and broadly ad hominem that it's a longwinded version of "you suck!"
This is wonderfully hypocritical coming from the same person who wrote on an earlier thread:
So, once again you screamed the loudest, called me the most names and never once addressed my arguments, i guess that makes you the WINNER.And yet that is a *wonderfully* apt description of darbymcgill's own outburst against me. What a blatant double-standard darbymcgill keeps...
Do you linger when you pass mirrors or do you have one of those little video windows in the corner of your monitor?
Now do you have anything to actually rebut what I've written and are you going to provide it, or are you going to continue to issue gradeschool-level taunts that fail to address any of my points?