Then I gather you don’t want to have a debate duel.
Calling us tinfoil hat conspiracists is sticking to the facts but calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate.”
The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it. mlo, on the other hand, has used classical fallacies. If he wants to show point-by-point how his reply was edited and that did not reflect his original meaning, I’m all ears and will respond to his original meaning. But I have no confidence that mlo will do that because what he says is a twisting of the truth. If he really wanted to stop being called a troll, he would take me up on my offer. I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage. Until we get some honorable way to compel the others to stop acting that way, we are stuck fighting fire with fire. I and others have asked JimRob for relief against the trolls. In one instance I got the troll “searchin” exposed for keyword abuse, but when the abuse started up again, whoever the admin mod was on duty was not so inclined. Nor was JimRob. The sad state of argumentation is due to the lack of consistent moderating.
One further thing. Free Republic needs a definition of troll, both for the obvious newbie DU troll or an issue-specific troll. The admin mods can decide for themselves if a person who’s been brought to their attention meets that definition, which would be out in the open.
For the various CertifiGate ping lists... to consider my idea of establishing an FR definition of troll. If this issue is too heated to get a start on it, we can all go ahead and start on it on January 21.
MHGinTN; little jeremniah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
No, because you are trying to make me the issue instead of the facts.
"Calling us tinfoil hat conspiracists is sticking to the facts"
I never called you that.
"...but calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate.”"
Yes, that's right.
"The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it."
No, you haven't. Calling names, attacking the poster, attempting to block contrary opinions, are not rational debate.
"...mlo, on the other hand, has used classical fallacies."
No, I have not. But if you believe I do, then your task is to challenge them rationally. Not call names or try to block the contrary opinion.
"If he wants to show point-by-point how his reply was edited and that did not reflect his original meaning, I’m all ears and will respond to his original meaning. But I have no confidence that mlo will do that because what he says is a twisting of the truth."
I'm not going to go point by point because this is all a diversion. One example will do.
You edited, "Chemtrails? I don't think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes." to "Chemtrails? I don't think so.", dropping off the second sentence that didn't help your point. And you want to say I'm twisting?
I haven't twisted a damn thing.
"I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage."
What you want is to prevent people from disagreeing, just like a typical leftist. That speaks for itself.
Once again, all this nonsense is not the issue. It is a diversion from the issues. Note that it's not me attempting the diversion. I will not continue a debate with you about who should be posting. We can debate the CertifiGate issues where they belong.
With the use of only one arm and pain I just can’t type fast enough to say what I want to say. The short version is that mlo is being worse than disingenuous by playing the honest victim. And Kevmo and others have presented reasonable comments over and over again, with axelrod tactics given in exchange.