Comment: Quotes

"Did you, or did you not accuse me of willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

The use of quotes is helpful in any case of this type.

I choose my words with care. What did I actually write?

"That, to me would constitute slander of me because quite simply it is false, and slander, by it's very nature, is unkind."

So why not ask, instead of accuse?

You wrote:

"Your thinking sounds like socialism on a heavy dose of steroids and the scenario you envision would be impossible to achieve in the real world."

You just now wrote:

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Later you wrote:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

You just now wrote:

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Fellow forum member = socialist

Fellow forum member = Obama

What logically follows?

Fellow forum member = terrorist?

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Did you?

I'm asking.

"Are you actually claiming that you know what my intent was?"

If I did, then you can quote the words I published where I made this claim, and if you can quote such words then I can apologize for making such a claim without first asking for clarification.

What are the facts?

"Are you actually claiming that you know what my intent was? and how is that possible when you don't know me at all."

I am not, if I did I was wrong, I don't think that I did, I may have slipped up, and that is why I often use quotes, so that I do not slip up, and again, if I did, then I was wrong because I can't know, unless I trust you for your word, concerning any willful intent you may intend to willfully employ.

I make it a point to ask.

"How does it not occur to you that it is possible for someone to misunderstand what is being said by another without there being a grand plan of defamation behind it all?"

What are you now claiming to be something that does not occur to me - exactly?

Why don't you ask me if I do or if I do not think anything? Why do you now claim that something does not occur to me?

The fact is that your words placed an innocent forum member in very close association to criminals. You did that here:

"Your thinking sounds like socialism on a heavy dose of steroids and the scenario you envision would be impossible to achieve in the real world."

and here:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

There are more examples, in your published response to what that fellow forum member had to offer - as he offered generously.

No good deed goes unpunished?

Note the question mark.

"If you actually read my first comment..."

Now you are constructing a person that did not read your first comment. Where is this person that did not read your first comment?

Are you intending to place my name on this phantom person that did not read your first comment?

Note the question mark.

Exhibit XYZ:

"How does it not occur to you that it is possible for someone to misunderstand what is being said by another without there being a grand plan of defamation behind it all?"

That sounds to me like a Straw Man argument whereby the liar creates a "conspiracy theorist" who is ever ready to display his malignity in creating a conspiracy behind every shadow, so I'm asking, is it your intent to discredit me by painting me up as a nutcase?

Note the question mark?

"And not everyone that thinks socialism is a good idea falls into the category of a criminal."

In your own words you moved the fellow forum member and his good standing in this on-line community very close, much too close for me, to a Mr. Obama (if that is his real name) who is every bit the poster boy for the greater, not the lesser, evil, so why did you do that?

I'm asking.

"There are plenty of people that think it is a good idea, but are simply misguided or just don't fully understand it."

If you can offer up a working definition of what exactly you mean when you use the term socialism, then we can both be as smart as you are about your definition of that word. I have a very good working definition of socialism first published in 1848. We can compare notes. If I have moved from being less smart to being even slightly smarter is it by comparing notes.

"accused me of having some grand scheme to discredit or defame anybody."

"grand scheme" are words chosen by you to accomplish what goal?

Me = "grand scheme"

What is the point?

What you did was you brought a fellow forum poster very close to, in very close association to, as in guilt by association, to criminals that you call socialists, and even worse.

Your target = Obama

Why did you do that?

This:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

You did that, and the target of that let it go, which proves again that your target did not deserve your targeting and pulling the trigger on this:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

Nice work.

Why did you do that - exactly?

"I really have nothing else to add to this discussion Josf that hasn't already been said..."

That is a tactic called The Parthian Arrow or Parthian Shot.

I don't think that the following qualifies as a discussion:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

I don't think that the attachment of "grand schemes" to me qualifies as a discussion either.

What is exemplified by the exchange between you and your target is exactly the kind of proof that proves that people are not bad, as a rule, since good people can triumph over people who either choose to behave badly or are as yet unaware of the full measure of their bad behavior.