From: Gene McAloon 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:21:34 +1200, dmhills{at}attglobal.net (Don Hills) wrote:

>In article ,
>Gene McAloon  wrote:
>
>>Of course I disagree with your analysis. How can I not when you have got it
all
>>wrong?
>
>Well, of course you have to attempt to refute it. You screwed up and got
>called on it, but your contrarian ethic won't allow you to acknowledge it.

Obviously it is you who screwed up by misinterpreting what I said. You
mistakenly thought I was agreeing with Phil after just having disagreed
with him. At this point I suspect you still don't understand the point I
was making.
>
>>Phil said that those who used personal attacks were dismissed in Canopus as
not
>>having a decent argument and thus engaged in personal attacks.
>
>Er... what? I think it made more sense when Phil said it.

Is it perhaps that English is a second language for you? You do seem to be
having difficulty with it.
>
>>That is the
>>standard criticism usually made of those who engage in personal attacks.
>>Conventional wisdom, you might call it.
>>
>>The beauty of Canopus, as I said, was that it was precisely those who
complained
>>about others engaging in personal attacks were themselves thought to complain
>>about such attacks because they hadn't the arguments to do anything but
complain
>>about such attacks.
>
>You've been taking lessons from Rich Shupak.  Or watching "Yes,
Minister".
>
>>Got it now?  It really isn't all that difficult after all.
>
>All you've done is make it clear that I had it right the first time. As you
>point out, it really isn't as difficult as you have tried to make it with
>your "explanation".

You got it all wrong and are now trying to wriggle out of your mistake and
not doing too good a job of that either.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5