Re: Torkel Franzén is dead


MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
How long will this trial last, Mr Prosecutor? 'Cause I just need to
know whether I'll be needing my winter suit.

Hey, you asked for it. You were the one who decided to put my remarks
on trial. You were the one who demanded that I 'prove' an off-the-cuff
remark. You were the one who went through the thread, and demanded
that everyone who said anything you didn't like about Torkel Franzen
had to 'prove' his comments. You were the one who insisted on a trial,
when I suggested that we just agree to disagree, and started attacking
my credibility for even suggesting such a thing. Remember all that?

This 'trial' of my comments, Mr. Prosecutor, was completely your idea.
You've put me on trial, with you as the Prosecutor, even though you've
done nothing to prove your case; you've just been demanding that I give
evidence and explain myself, over and over again. And I have been
doing just what you've asked me to do, every step of the way.

And now you're whining coz it's taking a little longer than you
expected? Well, maybe you should have realized what you were asking
for. You asked me to prove that 'virtually all' Franzen's 21st-century
sci.logic posts were "trolls" (as defined). In order to do that, we
have to look at almost 1,000 posts. Thanks to your handling of the
case, we have so far looked at less than 30 posts. You do the math
(you should be capable of that sort of logic, anyway) and figure out
how long this is going to take. And remember, you asked for it.

If you have a problem with that, I'll repeat the same offer that I've
been making since day one - that we drop the subject and just agree to
disagree. I cannot do that when you claim that, whatever posts I don't
answer, I agree with. Like this bit of unsupported attack, for
instance:

Why in the world should I take your VAST mischaracterization, your VAST
overgeneralization that VIRTUALLY ALL his posts (sci.logic 00-06) were
just stirring and perpetuating flames. That's STRIKINGLY unreasonable.

You can't 'reasonably' expect me to agree with THAT. But you've
claimed that, if I don't reply to it, I am agreeing - that you've got
the guilty plea you want. So you leave me no choice but to keep
replying.

snip

Just as it is strikingly unreasonable to say he ignored the topic of a
thread when he actually vigorously addressed the topic even though his
view disagrees with YOURS.

He did not. He said nothing that had anything at all to do with
teaching logic in schools.

Now do you understand why I have to keep replying? That you're the one
whose idea this 'trial' was, the one who's been stretching it out, the
only one who can end it at any time?

I am not going to agree with you that I'm a liar, when I'm not, just
because you find it a bit tiresome to finish what you started. I've
obliged you enough already in this thread; for once, you can do
something for yourself.

.

Relevant Pages