"You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Translation: you still cannot back up your claims. C'mon, Professor P.! You were just boasting about how effective you are at communication! Can't you give us one little old example? Something from Tal Bachman, maybe? Surely you can provide one little shred of evidence supporting your claim that the critics "distort" what you're saying. Right? Since you are such a splendid communicator? Or have you just been puffing hot wind in order to placate the TBMs?

Your explosion of obsessive hatred and frustration on the Stendahl thread was fascinating.


Are you a mind-reader now? Come now, Dan. You have no way of determining what my mental and/or emotional state was like. What's "fascinating" is that you are now resorting to pseudo-psychoanalysis in order to avoid getting pinned to the floor yet again.

This one's not nearly so spectacular, but the desperate, almost frantic, need to find some way to insult me is still pretty apparent.


Again: no proof, no real response to the question. And, I have to ask: how is it somehow an "insult" to ask you to provide proof for your oft-repeated claim? How is it an "insult" to point out that your claims lack support?
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Are you a mind-reader now? Come now, Dan. You have no way of determining what my mental and/or emotional state was like.

Your mental and emotional state regarding me has been on display for three years. The weird explosion on the "Stendahl" thread was unusual only for its, er, clarity.

Mister Scratch wrote:What's "fascinating" is that you are now resorting to pseudo-psychoanalysis in order to avoid getting pinned to the floor yet again.

He says, having just denounced "mind-reading."

LOL.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Still no evidence. Still avoiding the issue.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Still no evidence. Still avoiding the issue.

Still obsessing. Still panting for vengeance for imagined injuries.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Still no evidence. Still avoiding the issue.

Still obsessing. Still panting for vengeance for imagined injuries.


In what way do you "imagine" you've "injured me," Dr. Peterson? I'm anonymous. Remember?

And you are still dodging the issue. If you can't answer, it will strike a pretty significant blow against one of your favorite rhetorical tactics. Are you sure you don't want to try and supply some evidence?
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _solomarineris »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Translation: you still cannot back up your claims. C'mon, Professor P.! You were just boasting about how effective you are at communication! Can't you give us one little old example? Something from Tal Bachman, maybe? Surely you can provide one little shred of evidence supporting your claim that the critics "distort" what you're saying. Right? Since you are such a splendid communicator? Or have you just been puffing hot wind in order to placate the TBMs?

Your explosion of obsessive hatred and frustration on the Stendahl thread was fascinating.
This one's not nearly so spectacular, but the desperate, almost frantic, need to find some way to insult me is still pretty apparent.


Show us how he (Scratch) is a malevolent loon?
Your essay on RFM was spectacularly uninspired, un-intelligent. First McCue made a fool outta you, now Scratch is handing the rope to you to hang yourself.
Don't you get it?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

By the way: You *did* read McCue's rebuttal, didn't you? An earlier post of your suggested that you never bothered to read it.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:By the way: You *did* read McCue's rebuttal, didn't you? An earlier post of your suggested that you never bothered to read it.

I skimmed it.

(I've never read the phone book, either.)

McCue is unbelievably long-winded, and, whenever I settled on something in detail, he seemed unspeakably wrong-headed, too.

Life is short. McCue is long.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:In what way do you "imagine" you've "injured me," Dr. Peterson? I'm anonymous. Remember?

I remember you huffing and puffing for the first year or so about my supposed role in the decision of the moderators on the board formerly known as FAIR to give you the boot.

Had you forgotten that?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: "You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:By the way: You *did* read McCue's rebuttal, didn't you? An earlier post of your suggested that you never bothered to read it.

I skimmed it.

(I've never read the phone book, either.)

McCue is unbelievably long-winded, and, whenever I settled on something in detail, he seemed unspeakably wrong-headed, too.

Life is short. McCue is long.


It is deeply ironic (and uproariously funny) that you, the guy who is constantly on Harmony's (and others') case about commenting without having done the reader, and yet, here you are, attempting to flick away a very even-keeled critique of your work after a mere "skim".

Once again you fail to provide evidence that anyone has truly "misrepresented" you. At best, all you've got here is some vague sense that McCue "seemed" "wrong-headed." The Mopologetic ship continues to sink.
Post Reply