From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:55:38 GMT

In article <C0GzKK.9MD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > I was correct to say that you were evading all of my questions on the list.
> 
> No, you weren't correct to make such a claim.   As I've pointed out
> previously, I simply don't have the time or inclination to wade through 
> the dozens upon dozens of groundless assertions that you typically set 
> forth in each of your postings.    

Whether or not you had time or inclination to answer the questions has no
bearing on your act of evasion.  See below.
 
>[...]
> Do you have any proof to support the claim that I was "evading" 
> your questions?  Or, is this one of those "correct" statements 
> that we're supposed to accept until proven otherwise?  

evade, vb

c: to avoid answering directly

> >> Needless to
> >> say, this doesn't stop you from applying more rigid standards to your
> >> opponents.
> > 
> > Also untrue.
> 
> We'll see. [read on]
> 
> >> Modified question #3:  
> >> 
> >> Don't you think it might be more reasonable for you to shoulder 
> >> the burden of proving your claims, rather than expecting your 
> >> opponents to prove that your claims are wrong?  
> > 
> > A loaded question.  You are making unfounded assumptions about my
> > intentions.
> 
> It's hardly an assumption.

I said that it was a loaded question.

>You've demonstrated by statements and
> by deeds that you have two standards of proof:  one for yourself
> and one for your opponents.

You've claimed such, but it has not been demonstrated.
 
> >> Modified question #4:
> >> 
> >> Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
> >> understand the inner motives of their opponents?
> > 
> > The inner motives of my opponents are beside the point.
> 
> Yet, you persistently make them a point, ie your statements concerning
> my alleged "evasion" of your "pertinent questions".

Your evasion of my pertinent questions is an action, not an "inner motive."
 
>[...]
> The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's kinda silly for you
> to assume that your opponents are "evading" your "questions", as though 
> your spew represented some sort of formidable challenge. 

That you are evading my questions is obvious to everyone.
 
>[...]
> How are your readers supposed to distinguish between groundless or
> false factual statements and your "opinions"?

The same way that yours do.
 
>[...]

> > Because of practical limitations with deadlines, etc.  Reporters are often
> > unable to double-check information in press releases prior to publication. 
> > I do not in any way suggest that the WP reporter was being unethical.  He
> > was simply mistaken.  
> 
> Is this a factual statement?  Or is it just another "opinion"?

The first two are facts; the second is an opinion.
 
> I'll keep my list of unanswered questions handy, Martin.

Bring them on, and, while you are at it, don't forget to answer mine.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals