Re: What is going on here
JB, you said:
"I asked you to SHOW ME!! Can't do it, can you? That is because it didn't happen, except in your brain."
JB, I think I can show otherwise, unless you are changing the rules of engagement once again.
Take a look at #1 and #2 of your statements below.
Quote #1 "You really look a lot dumber than you are when you do that."
Quote #2 "You sound like a woman in an argument for which she has no answer, so she attacks on an entirely different subject."
You then said in a later statement, Quote #3 "I surely attacked what people said, and even commented on what it sounded like, but I don't find anywhere I said, "You are. . . . ." or "you. . . .". "
You can say what you like JB, but #1 and #2 is definately not attacking what I said.
Because you did not say "you are a," or something similar does not make it any less a personal attack. This is where you are attempting to change the rules of engagement for your need as you have in the past. If this is the rule, I can play by it. Follow along JB.
For future reference JB, if I don't agree with you, or I don't like what you say, it is fair game for me to say "you sound like" or "you look like,"....and then I can fill in any adjective I would like here? This is fair game? This is precisely what you have done JB. It's crazy, it's wrong and you know it!
In #1 you are attacking the fact that I said it, not what I said. Your stated meaning is that I must be stupid if I believe what I said and I continue to do the same. You really "look stupid" if you think I will believe it was not an attack on something other than my opinion.
In #2, you are once again not attacking what I said. Again, you are attacking the fact that I said it. You then made a comparison stating I argue like a women. How in the heck is that attacking what I said and not me?
Let me say that you stating I argue like a women JB, does not offend me. I guess I am lucky. I know some brilliant females that would make you "look stupid'" if you attempted to even try to hold a debate with them.
If I were a women JB, I would take great offense to a moderator making such a chauvinistic comment to a fellow iboater. When you make such chauvinistic comments in this day and age JB, you really "sound and appear stupid." I was going to let this chauvinistic comment go, but for some reason you believe all you said was fair and non-personal. Well, you just made a personal attack on about 50% of the world's population. They may not all care, but it was still a personal attack.
Now, I believe I played by your rules of engagement JB. I did not say ""You are. . . . ." or "you. . . .". " anything. I will use your quote to defend my position on my comments. "I surely attacked what people said, and even commented on what it sounded like, but I don't find anywhere I said, "You are. . . . ." or "you. . . .".
How are the rules of engagement sounding to you now?
For the record though, you did say "you" in quote #1 and #2.
So, when you say "the names only happened in our brains," JB, that's the one and only place that matters!
Before anybody accuses me of stating a chauvinistic comment earlier in this thread, its true, as a follow up. I said something along the lines of "the women shoe must fit you," or something to that effect. It was meant only as a return in the same vein in which it was originally used. I often return the same fire used upon me even if I don't necessarily believe it. Why...for the same purpose of its original intent.
Again JB, if these are your rules, there will be a decline in civilized debate here.
