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.
No, because you are trying to make me the issue instead of the facts.
***No, I’m making the legitimacy of this subject the issue.
I never called you that.
***I’m too lazy to look it up, so I’ll settle with how often we’ve seen it on these threads by your friends. But you did call credibility into question. Now you don’t want to go down that path.
calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate....Yes, that’s right.
***Caveat FReeptor. FReepers will note that I only start using insults after rational debate has been thrown out the window by my debating opponent. And if mlo wants to put an end to it, he will take me up on my debate offer.
Kevmo: “The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it.”
mlo: No, you haven’t.
***You’re not a lurker. Or do you forget that interesting little tidbit?
Calling names, attacking the poster, attempting to block contrary opinions, are not rational debate.
***Then take me up on my challenge. It should be easy to blow out someone who fits such an irrational image of debater.
No, I have not. But if you believe I do, then your task is to challenge them rationally.
***I have challenged your classical fallacies.
Not call names or try to block the contrary opinion.
***Feel free to engage with me on a debate over the credibility of this issue and if you win, you knock me out of posting on these threads. AFter all, if the issue is deemed tinfoil-hat-conspiracy material, I’m not going to want to dignify it.
I’m not going to go point by point because this is all a diversion. One example will do.
***Ahh... cherry picking. A fine tradition of the dishonorable debater.
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 don’t follow. Give us the link. We can all see it for ourselves and I can respond or clarify as necessary.
I haven’t twisted a damn thing.
***Sure you have. Look how you’ve twisted a straightforward challenge into making it all about you, for starters.
Kevmo: “I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage.”
mlo: What you want
***My, what a marvelous example of twisting you have just given all of us. And it includes mind reading as well. My goodness, is that a classical fallacy?
is to prevent people from disagreeing, just like a typical leftist. That speaks for itself.
***Well, now, further name calling. Now I can see why you do not want to engage with me on a moderated debate.
Once again, all this nonsense is not the issue. It is a diversion from the issues.
***If that were your concern, you’d have taken me up on my offer in a nanosecond.
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.
***Blah blah, I think at this point you’re wandering into non sequitur land, but... thanks for providing the shining examples of your twisting, fallacies, and name calling.