Replies

"It was a serious response. I was trying to understand your position. I've never understood why you insist on being so disagreeable all the time. Are you even familiar with the dove/hawk scenario?" - rp71

You are upset that I called your dove/hawk scenario a straw man, [that is exactly what it was] -- thus you deem me 'disagreeable'.
Please, explain the 'scenario', and then what your point was in making your comment. {of course, you could have made such a reply initially, right?}

How?

How was your reply a straw man? -- Because you did not address my posts point, but instead infered I was taking some position in your inane hawk/dove 'scenario'.

You are ['disagreeble'], not just this time, but always. I call a spade a spade.

Now you're making yet another personal attack, because you can't refute my logical argument. - It's a petty tactic, just like your straw dog.

-----------------------------

Please, explain the 'scenario', and then what your point was in making your comment.

Here's a good discussion of the Hawk/Dove simulation.

Immaterial. -- You've proven that you can't back up your positions. -- Thanks

Because you did not address my posts point, but instead infered I was taking some position in your inane hawk/dove 'scenario'.

No, I didn't infer anything but asked if hawk/dove type of interaction was what you were getting at. No inference. I was trying to understand you position. If I had used something irrelevant to the discusion as an argument, then claimed I had won the argument, that is straw man. Asking for clarification is not.

To clarify I was NEVER "upset". You're a disagreeable jerk and that's why your good and viable points are often lost on those you're trying speak to. You can continue using whatever debate style you choose. I don't care.

Immaterial. -- You've proven that you can't back up your positions.

Sometimes I CANNOT believe how dense you are. I never presented the dove/hawk simulation as an argument against you, but rather if this particular scenario was the point you were trying to make. In a nutshell, the scenario entails animals don't fight, even amoungst themselves, unless necessary because to fight to is risk death yourself. I mere was wondering if this was what you were getting at. I gues it isn't.

You've shown yourself to be cantankerous and UNable to follow a simple question without taking offense - Thanks