[…]
>>>Paul Robson: I know you think I am being abusive when I question your
literacy but this makes me think you either can't/won't understand, or don't
bother to read what I write.
****************************
DNAunion: Oh I can read what you write, and it is your general attitude
toward me that is abusive - more and more so, in fact. Don't worry, Paul, I
will back up my assertion, using your own statements.
But better than my being able to read, is the fact that I can predict the
future!
Let’s take a look at some of Pauls' “kind, tender, and
loving” statements about me that appeared in the previous reply Paul
made to me, and then see my prediction.
****************************
>>>Paul Robson: Well, this is just absurd
>>>Paul Robson: You haven't addressed anything
>>>Paul Robson: I personally believe you are playing games with the word
"coupling".
>>>Paul Robson: … which is a poor usage, as coupling implies the
changes are directly linked together,
>>>Paul Robson: I would be inclined to give you the benefit of more doubt if
I hadn't seen your other claim about "solely relying on OST to show cell
organisation".
>>>Paul Robson: I suspect this is simply what you think you've read…
>>>Paul Robson: I have never seen anyone claim this, except as a Creationist
straw man argument (the evolving junkyard).
********************
DNAunion: So after I read the rather personal and negative comments you
wrote, I formulated the following prediction:
********************
>>>DNAunion: It is obvious from this and other statements in Paul's response
to me that Paul is getting more and more personal, less and less objective,
and more and more difficult to communicate with. Based on his current trend,
I expect future exchanges to degenerate.
********************
DNAunion: And my prediction panned out. Let’s see how “loving
and compassionate” Paul was were in his following (most recent) reply
to me. (I will address all Paul's errors in another post – this one is
dedicated to his increasing unpleasantness).
********************
>>>Paul Robson: Thanks DNA. I now know it is your limited reading
comprehension.
>>>Paul Robson: You have to have pretty low levels of literacy to think…
>>>Paul Robson: I know you think I am being abusive when I question your
literacy but this makes me think you either can't/won't understand, or don't
bother to read what I write.
>>>Paul Robson: You write "this is a form of this argument" ; it quite
clearly isn't.
>>>Paul Robson: You can't read, can you DNAUnion ?
>>>Paul Robson: You don't know what the word "solely" means, do you ?
>>>Paul Robson: You don't know what a "functioning cell" is do you ?
>>>Paul Robson: You just see what you want to see, read what you *think* is
there and then reply to it.
>>>Paul Robson: I fail to see what this response has to do with your claim ;
which I now believe you cannot substantiate.
>>>Paul Robson: You see, its difficult to tell if this is dishonesty,
ignorance, wish fulfilment or just plain idiocy.
*******************
DNAunion: Yep, just as I had predicted. I wonder how Paul will manage to
continue his escalation of derogatory comments: is there a limit?
Now I would like to ask those here who have this notion that *I* am the
troublemaker at this site, what I have done to Paul Robson in order to
deserve this abusive assault of his. (I am NOT asking Paul, because he is
obviously to biased to formulate a clear and rational response – this
is a question I would like everyone else to ponder for himself/herself).
This is the point where I usually retaliate with counter insults. But as
SEJones has advised me (and his advice appears sound), I will forgo any
verbal counter attack (as I then become, apparently, just a guilty as the
instigator) and instead let the participants at this site figure out who the
“bad guy” is in this exchange. From the above statements I
quoted from Paul, the answer should be obvious to any *OBJECTIVE* participant.
In my next response to Paul, I will target his errors.
*********************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 18:46:40 EST