Re: Gay lisp

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 12/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:45:00 +0000

In message <ft4mr0h7jao28rm51r20tfg22ilqn99e0o@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes
>Richard Herring writes:
>
>> So? If you quoted enough context, we could all see for ourselves who was
>> or was not lying.
>
>Just reading the original posts would already have served that purpose.

When question and answer are separated by several posts, it can be
difficult to disentangle them from the other material.
>
>> But then you wouldn't be able to conceal the fact that
>> you're answering a different question from the one originally asked.
>
>You're welcome to backquote everything I've written, if you wish.

As you may have noted that I do from time to time, to illuminate your
technique. And I don't need your permission to do so.

> I'm
>extraordinarily consistent in what I write, as a general rule.

The style of your postings is undoubtedly consistent. But if you
genuinely believe that they constitute a consistent argument, it's _you_
who need to go back and read the original posts.
>
>> I can see why you find the technique so attractive: it allows you to
>> sidestep from what should be a connected series of statements intended
>> to establish a definite proposition to mere contradiction, the automatic
>> gainsaying of anything the other person says.
>
>Not necessary in my case.
>
Then why do you do it? 

-- 
Richard Herring