Odeon you implied I was dishonest at best and a liar at worst

[odeon]

::sigh::

Again, I have made my argument, for better or worse. I see little point in repeating or rewording it. You called me out, not the other way around, and while I completely understand that you may not be happy with my replies, I have explained my reasoning as well as I can and rather think that the outcome of this callout should now be left to the peanut gallery, if they are still interested enough to comment.

You're wrong about how I feel about the eight months of bickering between members, though. I don't really care. I tend to avoid it because it bores me, and this callout happened to some extent because I didn't avoid it completely.

Also, when stating that you lost, I added the "IMHO" because it is my opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise, I believe I have repeatedly referred to the peanut gallery to pass judgment.

So is this out of character for me? I hope not.

[Al Swearegen]

::sigh::

Again, I have made my argument, for better or worse. I see little point in repeating or rewording it. You called me out, not the other way around, and while I completely understand that you may not be happy with my replies, I have explained my reasoning as well as I can and rather think that the outcome of this callout should now be left to the peanut gallery, if they are still interested enough to comment.

You're wrong about how I feel about the eight months of bickering between members, though. I don't really care. I tend to avoid it because it bores me, and this callout happened to some extent because I didn't avoid it completely.

Also, when stating that you lost, I added the "IMHO" because it is my opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise, I believe I have repeatedly referred to the peanut gallery to pass judgment.

So is this out of character for me? I hope not.

Yeah, it is.

It kind of sucks. The main reason why it sucks is that you know what intellectual dishonesty is and isn't.  You know that someone assuming something based on factors at their disposal and with solid reasoning is not being dishonest.

You know this and yet you tried in this instance to show either an ignorance of this OR a disbelief that the person making these assumptions was doing the above.

In other words there seems to be either:

A) You are pretending not to know the meaning of intellectual dishonesty (at least as it applies to this argument)

OR

B) You know the difference BUT given the option of me assuming (which I had vouched for) based on reasonable factors ( which I never have any difficulties listing and evidencing and explaining at the time or on demand) OR being dishonest (which would be both out of character and in the face of the above).....

.... You go right to the last option.

Odeon this is really out of character not for me but for you. At this point in the callout I would expect I would understand your position and/or your motive. I got nothing.

Neither of us are stupid. We were both party to this callout. A callout in which you on being asked to back repeated claims as to my dishonesty you try some small attempt of relating assumption to intellectual dishonesty. Before you are really pressed on this you try a bit of distraction with my use of the term "ganging up".
Then you say "I have made my point ".

But my efforts now in poking what I see as rather large holes in these (seemingly half-hearted) attempts of yours, have you falling back on "I have made my point".

No you really haven't.  I am happy discussing this all in the one callout OR if you would rather prefer, break this down into a series of call outs. Whichever you'd prefer. I would have thought after having accused me of being dishonest, you'd have preferred it dealt with in one callout.

[odeon]

OK, so let me go through this one last time, then. I'll start with this, the result of a simple Google search:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty

Following the link, the page starts with this:

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.

This links directly to what I meant. You claim on one hand that Zegh is full of it, while on the other admitting that you've not read him in once and that you may indeed be wrong. In other words, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why is that? Because you prefer the back and forth rather than actually considering what your opposite number has to say? Because you don't actually want to even consider changing your opinions?

Instead you rely on quoted material, on second-hand information and on how others (thinking of DFG here, but I'm sure there are others) react to his posts.

Quoting the article again:

IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.

Note that "IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds."

I think you make it easy for yourself, Al, for whatever reason, they key being that you base your views and actions on whatever your opinion of him was before you stopped reading but still go after him. As I hold you to higher standards than that--yes, I think you are intelligent enough--you simply did not live up to my expectations.

What surprised me, but also confirmed my view that you make it easy for yourself, is how you compared what you are doing to archaeologists assuming things about the distant past as if the two were even remotely comparable. I'm pretty sure they'd ask their subjects directly if they could, but you *choose* not to.

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.

So there it is. You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.

And last but not least, the "ganging up" comment is an aside but it does pertain to the matter at hand in that it is the kind of easy characterisation I rather thought you would avoid. Higher standards and all that.

So, can we let this thing die now?

[Al Swearegen]

No.

I will go back and dismantle your argument in this post tonight but in the meantime I will point out something else.

I, at the start of this feuding, made some rather broad assumptions about Zegh and his character. Among which was that he likes to see himself as a "cut above" those with differing views. I assumed he sees himself as smarter, more honest, more moral and also that he likes to be seen that way by others.

Me? I don't care. I just dislike the smarmy condescending git and I have have my fill of reading his posts.

But I also assumed (again of what little I knew of him) would not likely cop to being responsible nor accountable to resolve this feud. He would expect it dropped eventually and him not having to sort it.

I made these assumptions and then had it backed with those PM's. However 8 months is a long time. He COULD have changed his mind on things. According to your post I could have asked him perhaps or read his posts to see if he would endeavour to resolve things. Apparently he did too. He made great efforts to say how he was a mere pwn or victim of circumstances (words to that effect) BECAUSE he asked Hyke for solutions.  Of which him ignoring and abstaining from posting crap at either me or dfg for a month seemed to be it. (terrible "solution"  and would not have worked).

But here is the kicker. You and Hyke I am sure would have met your definition of intellectual honesty right? You both gave him virtual pats on the back.

Within 7 days he screwed you both over when he re-engaged along with Butterflies against DFG (though I have been thoroughly convinced now it was definitely NOT ganging up and they both just happened upon her threads. Terrible misreading).

So IF I was intellectually dishonest how where my assumptions proven right and evidence proved by the conclusions to be solid? Why were neither yours nor Hyke's? I do not consider either of you dishonest in this, just incorrect in your assumptions. I just do not consider either of you used as much evidence to characterise him correctly, as I did.

But then that seems close to your definition doesn't it?

Of course the other point. The OTHER evidence I might have relied on could have been what he could have told me or said to others, in your view that would have been more intellectually honest. That's what you seem to indicate.  What more information and from who? Zegh? Zegh who had already shown an unwillingness to resolve or be constructive in the feud well before I stopped reading his posts? Zegh who promise YOU guys 30 days and broke it in the week but "I" am dishonest because I picked it?

No Zegh was dishonest, I was disrespectful not dishonest and you and Hyke were conned. Let's call it as it is not what it isn't. That would be dishonest otherwise.

[odeon]

You're missing the point.

You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.

[Al Swearegen]

You're missing the point.

You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.

Easy way out? Did you honestly just write that? That's it, I want the real Odeon back.

You are a logical and rational guy so how the Hell is this a blindspot for you?

What do you imagine was the "better" and "harder way out"? It better not for one moment be reading his lies and taking them on face value like both you and Hyke seem to. Because relying on the lies of a liar (I called him out several times for lying in the callout and earlier in the feud for lying) is not harder or better. It is a lot of things. It is something to live down not live up to.

You imagine I suppose that reading everything he says is harder than not reading anything he says and yet keeping track or even the gist of things whilst keeping an eye on what other people say, marry it with what you know about him whilst remaining transparent in your assumptions.

I can't tell you how crazy this looks. If you were to say it is more disrespectful or annoying or whatever, sure.

Proof is in the pudding.  What I did required a LOT more effort and proof was in the pudding. That is why I was able to male predictions based on assumptions based on critical reasoning.

It's ironic that the information and evidence and yes assumptions was probably better quality in assessing his honesty.  Why not keep it real. Odeon?

I will dismantle the post of yours before last. Probably not tonight.  Bad dramas atm.

Edit: it looks from the Peanut Gallery that Butterflies has agreed that "ganging up" it not an unreasonable description of what she and Zegh were up to which both kinda puts a fork in your "ganging up is a bad word to use" semantics side debate AND backs in a round about way that Zegh was indeed attacking DFG as I thought AND seemingly in contravention of promises he wouldn't for one month.
The liar lied.
You were taken in by promise I wasn't.
You talk of intellectual dishonesty being not availing yourself of all the facts necessary, why not admit that I did but ignored the lies and YOU did the opposite and as a result the one with the short end of the stick in this instance.
I would not normally give a shit, but in this instance you are trying to indicate that I dropped the ball or were taking the easy way out or being dishonest when it appears to me, so very easily that a better case could be made by pointing the finger back on yourself

[odeon]

You're missing the point.

You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.

Easy way out? Did you honestly just write that? That's it, I want the real Odeon back.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to belittle your ninja cats.

You are a logical and rational guy so how the Hell is this a blindspot for you?

I could ask you the same thing.

What do you imagine was the "better" and "harder way out"? It better not for one moment be reading his lies and taking them on face value like both you and Hyke seem to. Because relying on the lies of a liar (I called him out several times for lying in the callout and earlier in the feud for lying) is not harder or better. It is a lot of things. It is something to live down not live up to.

This is not about Zegh. I'm surprised that you still haven't figured it out.

You imagine I suppose that reading everything he says is harder than not reading anything he says and yet keeping track or even the gist of things whilst keeping an eye on what other people say, marry it with what you know about him whilst remaining transparent in your assumptions.

It's easy in that you don't have to change your mind about anything. I'm surprised that you keep missing this and take what I said so literally.

I can't tell you how crazy this looks. If you were to say it is more disrespectful or annoying or whatever, sure.

Proof is in the pudding.  What I did required a LOT more effort and proof was in the pudding. That is why I was able to male predictions based on assumptions based on critical reasoning.

Pudding?

It's ironic that the information and evidence and yes assumptions was probably better quality in assessing his honesty.  Why not keep it real. Odeon?

I am. We disagree.

I will dismantle the post of yours before last. Probably not tonight.  Bad dramas atm.

Edit: it looks from the Peanut Gallery that Butterflies has agreed that "ganging up" it not an unreasonable description of what she and Zegh were up to which both kinda puts a fork in your "ganging up is a bad word to use" semantics side debate AND backs in a round about way that Zegh was indeed attacking DFG as I thought AND seemingly in contravention of promises he wouldn't for one month.

Butterflies "agreed"?

Can't be arsed getting involved in the drama between Les and Odeon, but this comment is just not right

Within 7 days he screwed you both over when he re-engaged along with Butterflies against DFG (though I have been thoroughly convinced now it was definitely NOT ganging up and they both just happened upon her threads. Terrible misreading).

Yes, briefly, Zegh and myself were arguing with/mocking DFG. I done so because I chanced upon posts of her still whining about a silly picture I posted 8 months ago, and of her speaking of having tracked my IP and messaging other members with it.  I don't know the history of why Zegh and DFG were fighting.

If that's ganging up, and I suppose by some definition it might be, then there would be no doubt that Les and DFG ganged up on Zegh for a very prolonged period of time. Certainly many months.

because I chanced upon posts of

If that's ganging up, and I suppose by some definition it might be

I don't think she is agreeing with you. She is certainly not confirming what you've said earlier in this callout.

The liar lied.
You were taken in by promise I wasn't.

This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.

You talk of intellectual dishonesty being not availing yourself of all the facts necessary, why not admit that I did but ignored the lies and YOU did the opposite and as a result the one with the short end of the stick in this instance.

See above. This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.

I would not normally give a shit, but in this instance you are trying to indicate that I dropped the ball or were taking the easy way out or being dishonest when it appears to me, so very easily that a better case could be made by pointing the finger back on yourself

See above. This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.

Are you deflecting? You've made a whole post about the literal meaning of "taking the easy way out", an optimistic interpretation of what Butterflies actually said, and focussed on my comments about that previous callout that had nothing to do with the callout at hand, but not addressed my actual point.

If you want to discuss the results of the last callout, that I said Hyke and Zegh won, fine. Just don't pretend they are relevant to this discussion because they aren't.

[Al Swearegen]

Still not pretending.

That is the problem. You can say what you wish and that is fine. It is just disappointing that you seem at every point and turn to say I am pretending this or pretending that or being dishonest about this or that. When I take the time to give context to show that I am anything but what you ASSUMED, you try to tell me I am not addressing your point.

So what WAS I pretending? Nothing.

What was I being dishonest about? Nothing.

What did this callout directly relate to? My interactions with Zegh.

Now I do not believe you did belittle my ninja cats and I still maintain that you have yet to make ANY case for Intellectual dishonesty.

I KNOW you would have preferred I had read Zegh's posts and made no assumptions on what he said, intended or felt. I know that. You told me. WAS I intellectually dishonest in not doing so?

No.

Why not? Because IF we take the view that Zegh is liable to post bullshit and lies as he has done in the past then relying on such readings of his posts is likely to result on NOT being further informed nor having more reliable information. Listening to him would more likely result in lies and being lied to.
You COULD say "Well you are intellectually dishonest because you did not avail yourself of all the information the Zegh could have said and you made assumptions that were bereft of anything you would gain directly from reading."
And what was that? I missed out on more condescension , smarminess and lies. So how would this avail me of anything constructive and make me more intellectually honest. IN FACT by availing myself of such information I may have believed his lies about laying off me and DFG for 30 days.
I didn't and the result is that he broke his promise and lied.
Therefore my assumptions were proven grounded and correct. Furthermore it showed a justification for having not read him.

So what WAS pretended? Well apart from nothing at all. I know it is a claim you like throwing around, but it is as impotent as your claim that I was intellectually dishonest.

So I have been too literal in respect to "the easy way out". How literal? Did I not just show that what I did and how I reasoned was a lot more demanding and involved than the alternative and as a result I was not taken in by a lie. (Yes even whilst posting ninja cats and observing what others said about him).

As to not having to change my mind about something. I have that option now. I do not need to change my mind about anything I don't wish to.

However, let's look at an example of what I imagine you mean:

I believe Zegh has no wish to resolve a feud he started and of his own making.

About eight months ago he writes PM's top me stating that I only harass girls and he is not a girl and i should try and harass him off the board and try my hardest to do this (paraphrased - I have posted the PM's in question).

"But if you aren't reading him, then how do you know his position has not changed in the meantime Al, you are being intellectually dishonest and taking the easy way out and assuming what you can not hope to know" Right? I mean this IS the crux of what you are saying, right?

Except about a month ago in a callout someone mentioned that he had admitted to loving stirring things up with me and DFG, irrespective of previous proclamations about it being something he wanted to resolve.

Soon afterwards again it was brought to bear by someone other than Zegh that he has decided on a 30 day break from attacking DFG and myself.

He did not last a week and he was attacking DFG.

SO.....you can see that regardless of what I posted, I was well and truly across what was happening. Regardless of the fact, that I was not reading Zegh I could see what was happening. I could use this information to make reasonable assumptions and in fact reading him may have not been advantageous.

What exactly ought I have reassessed? HE showed exactly the same indifference to resolving things as he had 8 months ago and I still I was right then and right now. Why exactly do you imagine I would be inclined to change my mind? Any reason? Why do you think it may be reasonable?

Its a problem you say a lot of stuff but do not back it, and when I defend the claim you say "I'm not talking about that". It seems convenient.

Assumptions
Pretence
Pretending
Dishonest
Intellectual dishonesty
Easy way out

I call BULLSHIT on the lot of it. Line them up I will knock them down. The problem you have is that YOU made the above claims about me and they are incorrect. You can say I did not defend them correctly, or that what you said you did not mean literally, or that you mean something else but you need to make the point better if that is the case because I am still none the wiser as to what you mean.

You are either being really vague and hedging around what I put to you in order not to have your premise exposed or you have not made a case well enough for me to understand where in Hell you are coming from. (Of course there is the minute chance I simply have not understood and it is my failing ) )

Spell it out Odeon. I don't mind being treated like an idiot in this context. Surely no worse than being treated like a pretending dishonest dude who takes the easy way out. That is a lot further from my personality, intent, motive and posting than being an idiot.

[odeon]

I really don't know how else to put it, Al. I've tried to explain in several different ways, so either I'm doing it very badly or you don't want to see it. Either way, I am not interested in repeating myself.

But, this is not about Zegh and never was, so stating this or that about what he did then and what he's done since is simply not relevant. I'm also not saying you are a dishonest person, so mischaracterising what I said doesn't help either.

We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm also not saying you are a dishonest person, so mischaracterising what I said doesn't help either..

Well shit. I wopnder how I may have got the idea you were telling me I was dishonest. Such mischaracterisations on my part I am sure because surely you would not have said I was:
pretending,
dishonest,
intellectually dishonest,
taking the easy way out,
or anything else to that effect, huh?

Great! Then you did not say any of this below (italicised and bolded):

You know perfectly well what I mean. Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first, that's all I'm saying.

Both you and Zegh seem to enjoy this endless back and forth, though, so whatever works for you and all that. Just don't pretend it's something else than what it is.

So if you want to call me out, by all means do so, but please try to come up with a more relevant subject.

I'm saying pretty much what you did, that this is what they are, they like it, and so it's why they do it. But I'm also saying that [b]Al shouldn't pretend it's about something else[/b], which is how I read his post and why I replied.

Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.

The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts.

pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses

    1.
    an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
    "his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
    synonyms:   make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;

Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest. Not dramatically so, but it is intellectually dishonest since you base what you say on assumptions and admit that's what they are and that you don't know, yet, at the same time basically say Zegh is full of it.

You can't have it both ways, and that is why I have a problem with it.

It's pretending to know more than you do.

That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?

I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case

OK, so let me go through this one last time, then. I'll start with this, the result of a simple Google search:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty

Following the link, the page starts with this:

When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.

This links directly to what I meant. You claim on one hand that Zegh is full of it, while on the other admitting that you've not read him in once and that you may indeed be wrong. In other words, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why is that? Because you prefer the back and forth rather than actually considering what your opposite number has to say? Because you don't actually want to even consider changing your opinions?

Instead you rely on quoted material, on second-hand information and on how others (thinking of DFG here, but I'm sure there are others) react to his posts.

Quoting the article again:

Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.

Note that "Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds."
I think you make it easy for yourself, Al, for whatever reason, they key being that you base your views and actions on whatever your opinion of him was before you stopped reading but still go after him. As I hold you to higher standards than that--yes, I think you are intelligent enough--you simply did not live up to my expectations…..So there it is. You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.

You took the easy way out

It's easy in that you don't have to change your mind about anything. I'm surprised that you keep missing this and take what I said so literally.

Now I know you say this was not about Zegh so I was very bad to discuss him in any way in this callout. But you know the problem with that?

Odeon You were dishonest/pretending/taking the easy way out/intellectually dishonest.
Al No I wasn't
Odeon Yes you were
Al How?
Odeon In your general dealings with Zegh you assumed some stuff and posted ninja cat and read what others were writing. I think you should have read him. To not have to assume.
Al Yet I maintain I would be no better off for listening because he lied and was caught, the very act of doing so exonerates the lack of quality in reading his drivel which justifies my conviction that it was not worth reading.
Odeon This is not about Zegh. Its about you being dishonest and anything else I feel fit to label you. Stop defending yourself

Can't tell you how weak this is.

[odeon]

Al: I haven't read Zegh's posts but he is full of shit and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like.
Odeon: Don't you think that is being intellectually dishonest?
Al: That's it, you're calling me dishonest and a liar, I am calling you out.

That about right?

[Al Swearegen]

Al: I haven't read Zegh's posts {Well keeping it real - I have not read him since mid 2015 but HAVE read him from 2009-2015 - let's not be dishonest here}but he is full of shit (Keeping it real - Which is evidenced. We can call it a lucky guess but then and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like}.  and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like. {Keeping it real - people feuding feud. Is this the measuring yardstick? If someone is fighting online they ought not say bad things because......reasons???}


Odeon: Don't you think that is being intellectually dishonest?
{So you weren't saying I WAS dishonest or pretending or taking easier options? Great! Why exactly do I NOT call bullshit on you and defend these notions?}


Al: That's it, you're calling me dishonest and a liar, I am calling you out.

Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first.

Just don't pretend it's something else than what it is.

Al shouldn't pretend it's about something else

pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.

either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts.

that's dishonest

It's pretending to know more than you do.

, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach make it easy for yourself,  You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach.

You took the easy way out

That about right?

{Oh boy!}

Yeah, Odeon. You can go down that path. You can try another tact. You can say "Oh I have made my point." You can even say that you are winning this argument.

You know what you cannot do? You cannot say "honesty" that I have pretended or being dishonest or have taken the easy way out. That does not mean you cannot say it at all or any other dumb shit BUT just not honestly.

You CAN try to have this conversation about my apparent inability to be honest without any context to what I may be dishonest about or what underpins or gives context to this claim......it just will not go favourably for you.

You cannot make any reasonable case for me being dishonest or pretending because there is and was never one to make.

You know what is even more cringeworthy? I do not think you can even make even a case for me being intellectually dishonest and I do not think you can make case of me even being incorrect in what I have said about Zegh. "You are dishonest.....but I am fucked if I know what it is that you were actually wrong about?"

[odeon]

We obviously disagree. I think I've made my point, made it in several ways, and I don't really have more to add. I mean, sure, I can go on rehashing and repeating and following your patterns for fun, but I don't actually have more to say on the subject. Sorry to disappoint you there.

Which is why I'm wondering what you hope to achieve. That I'll change my mind? Not going to happen since I think I'm right and you're wrong.

So, what do you hope to achieve?

[Al Swearegen]

We obviously disagree. I think I've made my point, made it in several ways, and I don't really have more to add. I mean, sure, I can go on rehashing and repeating and following your patterns for fun, but I don't actually have more to say on the subject. Sorry to disappoint you there.

Which is why I'm wondering what you hope to achieve. That I'll change my mind? Not going to happen since I think I'm right and you're wrong.

So, what do you hope to achieve?

I actually hoped for either of two options

1) to have you say something that is understandable and reasonable

Or

2) maybe have someone else translate some hidden point I have somehow missed in this

For example if you say: "You are dishonest" and then make no convincing case for me having been so, I find this unreasonable especially when I mercy kill weak suggestions to that end.

Or

If you say there is precisely two options a or b and you must believe one of them and both are dishonest, then I show I actually believe in neither and subscribe instead to option c.

Or

You say "What you do is easy" I then relate why it is harder and more comprehensive.

Or

You tell me my actions are a pretence and then cannot relate what I was pretending nor even what I was wrong about

Or

You tell me it's great that I don't have to change my mind about anything, yet do not provide any possible reason I would need to change my mind about anything


Do you see?
Now maybe the fault is with me. BUT YOU are NOT Zegh I value what you have said enough not to dismiss it out of hand. I do read and re-registered and analyse what you have said and I am no closer to see a reasonable point..
All I see is variations of the same themes "You did not read him", "You posted Ninja Cats".  Like either of these were anything more than  conversation starters and as if these points actually were irrefutable proof of your false claims of me. They weren't in either case
Yet my engagement in this is not what you want because whatever assumptions you have made, you are holding onto for dear life. When I give example after example to illustrate my point, I am apparently taking things too literally or bringing Zegh into the conversation. 

I don't think it is me though. I suspect the reason why nothing said has any substance is not that I am missing it, but that you have no real substance. In fact in my last reply I showed the lack of such substance.due to no consideration of context.

You are not a stupid man, Odeon. I see no reason for you purposely wishing to make and defend baseless claims about me to which and surface analysis would render toothless. I think you are smarter than that. So I want to know what is going on

[odeon]

Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.

I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.

Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.

I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.

We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.