In a message dated 3/6/01 10:04:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:
<< So go preen so smugly, and congratulate yourself on your adroit semantic manoeuvring, and otherwise pamper your over-inflated ego with whatever other contrived reassurances it demands.<<
Dear me, what an alarming case of projection. Someone else omits a critical word in their debate, and *I'm* somehow guilty of semantic manoeuvring, ego and self-congratulation.
Do not on any account reflect on the possibility that you have as good as
admitted that you knew what we were talking about from the start and deliberately obstructed constructive dialogue for whatever discreditable reasons you choose to harbour.<<
Since you and your cohort never once stated what you actually meant, that would be a tad unrealistic, don't you think? I'm flattered, however, that you believe I have powers of extrasensory perception. Why, I must have automatically *known* that the repeated word of the generalized word 'sex' in the phrase "pornography and sex are not the same thing" actually meant "pornography and the performance of the act of sex are not the same thing." Yep, I'm plub flattered. I'm patting myself on the back now, as you recommend.
Do you seriously think you're not that transparent?>>
Well, I'll certainly take credit for some clarity, thanks.
Leah
--- Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
and *I'm* somehow guilty of semantic manoeuvring, ego and self-congratulation.
There was a cerain element of semantic trickery and equivocation contained within your posts in this thread.
Since you and your cohort never once stated what you actually meant, that would be a tad unrealistic, don't you think?
I think it was fairly clear form the initial point. The single word 'sex' is used frequently as a standard euphamism for what you have term "the performance of the act of sex"
And as for "cohort" altho' Mr. Faulkner has shown, in the course of these debates, that he is an intelligent, open-minded person with a skill for making a valid argument, I have never met nor spoken to him. More's the pity.
Well, I'll certainly take credit for some clarity,
I wouldn't.
wf wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Dear me, what an alarming case of projection. Someone else omits a
critical
word in their debate, and *I'm* somehow guilty of semantic manoeuvring,
ego
and self-congratulation.
I'm disappointed, Rosenthal. Until now I've considered you a worthy bit of oppo, but resorting to the next step up from the 'takes one to know one' line is really scraping the barrel.
Since you and your cohort
My and my *what*? I dare to agree with one person who has the temerity to disagree with you, and suddenly I'm marching at the head of a legion. It'll be conspiracy theories next.
never once stated what you actually meant, that would be a tad unrealistic, don't you think? I'm flattered, however, that
you
believe I have powers of extrasensory perception. Why, I must have automatically *known* that the repeated word of the generalized word 'sex'
in
the phrase "pornography and sex are not the same thing" actually meant "pornography and the performance of the act of sex are not the same
thing."
Only a complete idiot would have been unable to draw the distinction. Since you are not an idiot, let alone a complete one, you could only have been playing games to defend your own untenable corner.
Neil
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Neil Faulkner -
Wilson Fisk