And futhermore, you decided to REPEAT the lie that I am trying to disrupt the thread. I have no respect for liars.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's recap:
You came on to this thread with suspicions, off-topic litmus tests to disprove guilt-by-association fallacies, and the undefined term, "immigration restrictionist," which you appeared to be polishing as an ad hominem.
There are some very questionable associations among the immigration restricitonist crowd.
< -snip- >
So, as it stands, I believe I have three good reasons to harbor a very strong distrust of the restrictionists - distrust that has spread to some other cultural issues of late. And it's going to take a LOT of convincing for me to reconsider the positions I have taken about it at this point. Unless there are is some housecleaning, though, I will be a VERY hard sell on the vast majority of the restrictionist agenda.
hchutch - #82
Despite the ill will with which you began posting on this thread, I've answered your on-topic questions, promised a half-dozen times to deal with your Sam Francis fixation on a stand-alone thread of your own posting, and asked you to clarify what you mean by "immigration restrictionist," the term you introduced to this thread.
You've been nothing but dodgy, and prone to cap key histrionics.
You complained that there was an attempt to silence you, (quite laughably, because you offered as evidence the fact that I didn't file any abuse report on you), yet you haven't taken the numerous opportunities I've offered to make yourself clear as to your position and definitons.
I don't find you to be a sincere poster, or interested in genuine debate. I find your posts to be disingenuous, in their best light.
I consider repeated, melodramatic posts about everything but the topic to be attempts at disruption, however weak they might be.
Feel free to continue to avoid making yourself plain about your definitions, positions, etc., as I'm about done with you.
I will, however, fulfill my part of the Sam Francis bargain, whenever you should decide to post your thread on that topic. Please flag me to that at your earliest convenience. When I reply, my posts to you will be topical and I will answer your questions on the topic, provided that they aren't based on fallacious reasoning. If they are, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability even as I address the fallacies. I will also post on your thread with the understanding that any expectation on my part of sincerity on yours is probably unrealistic, and that any questions I might ask you should be considered rhetorical from the start, and you may feel free to ignore them and change the subject anytime it suits you.
I trust that you will not feel silenced in the bargain.
