Replies

It's clear I'm the great white whale to Ichneumon. I smile at that. He deserves no reply so I shall not, but I will remind him, since I am his obsession

What's "clear" is that someone has an oddly overinflated sense of his own significance.

Since August 25, 2003 (the last time I corrected a post by AndrewC until just recently, according to the "My Comments" page), I've made a whopping total of three (3) posts concerning something he's posted. That's an average of one every two months. If that's "obsession", then I don't think I'm doing it right.

For comparison, in the same time period I've made nine (9) replies to the guy who posts the Useful Idiot Caption-A-Rama threads, if that helps to give an idea of the relative importance I place on the two Freepers.

So I don't think *I'm* the one who's obsessed here, especially since AndrewC posts one of these odd "he's stalking me!" posts (e.g. "I also seem to have attracted a stalker") to just about any thread we happen to both end up in, and a while back, over several weeks he brought me up as a topic in at least four different threads that I never once participated in, complaining about how I had at one time pointed out that he appeared to be trolling in some of his more evasive responses on one thread. Now *that's* obsession.

But hey, if he gets a smile out of imagining that he's somehow worth any special attention, I'm happy to bring some joy into his life, he may well need it.

I also get joy out of the irony of someone saying that I "deserve no reply" -- as he makes a point of replying to me.

I told a poster who was itching for a confrontation to lay off. He refused to do so.

That's a... fascinating way to summarize that thread. What actually happened is that AndrewC spent every one of his first *27* posts on a science thread (New Dinosaur Species Found in India) not once talking about anything related to science, but instead wholly concerning himself with playing the self-appointed role of "thread cop" and handing out gold stars or detention slips (mostly the latter) to express his opinions about who was being "civil" enough for him. Sample excerpts from his posts: "Your shallow treatment of others is evident", "If you wish to joke, do it by freepmail", "Am I supposed to feel bad for this comment from a hypocrite?", "You have no moral compass", "I will be happy to not hear from you", and so on.

This was all *before* I had even posted to the thread myself. And yet now *I'm* the one who was "itching for a confrontation" in that thread? Okay, pull the other leg now.

The post I made that caused AndrewC to snap was this one (in reply to a post of his where he *finally* got around to something resembling the topic of the thread):

Wind and a little time turns sandstone into arches that resemble flying buttresses. It does not follow, to many people, that more time using the same process will result in the formation of Notre Dame Cathedral.
That's because "many people" fail to take into account why a process which includes variation, reproduction, and selection is very different from erosion, and is capable of much more.
If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison.

Oh, the horror, the horror... Yup, I'm just one of those incredibly "confrontational" guys, you betcha. I mean, who could possibly have borne such withering flames? Clearly I pushed the man beyond all human endurance.

I merely commented that I am evidently an obsession to him since I have not addressed him and he has entered into the discussions I have had with others.

*boggle*. Well heck, by *that* measure, then AndrewC must be "obsessed" with steve-b, since "steve-b has not addressed AndrewC and AndrewC has entered into the discussions that steve-b had with others" -- like the post of his I refuted.

Hint: It's a public forum. When we engage in threads, we *all* "enter into discussions" that people who "have not addressed us" are "having with others". If that's some sort of "obsession", I guess we all must be obsessed.

Well then tell me, is post 80 an attempt at a rational exchange,

It was. That's why I did that "addressing all the points the person had made and analyzed them in detail, and provided citations for my references" thing.

Were any of the responses to my post #80 an attempt at a rational rebuttal? Nope. Just complaints about my "attitude", sidestepping the actual issues I had raised about what was wrong with the original post.

I see a lot of "how *dare* you refute my post and find its flaws amusing, you callous brute!" replies on these threads, almost all of them coming from one side.

or is it belittling right from the start deserving of no response?

It is I suppose a character flaw of mine that I cannot pretend that a logically incoherent argument deserves to be treated with great respect, or that the author should remain free from having his sophistry pointed out, just to spare his ego from the embarrassment of learning that his post wasn't as clever as he thought it was.

But if that bothers anyone, there's a simple solution: Make better arguments next time.

As for lack of any effective response, I am perfectly happy to have my detailed refutations of flawed arguments remain unchallenged. It saves us all so much time.

The world will go on without my answer.

Then it's a win-win situation for all concerned. I'm glad we can all come away feeling good about these exchanges.