Mickthinks ignores arguments and responds to sleights
"Sleights" - good word, thanks Brim!
I think I have responded to
every argument, though I admit, not always immediately, and I have ignored many "sleights". The propensity for the more aggressive
ers to offer the latter in lieu of the former may have given you a false impression.
If there weren't so much general approval in this forum for "sleights" over arguments, then
viscousmemories might have had to admit that his "Don't be silly", "Thanks are passive aggressive" and "You're just trolling" were not valid or constructive, and there would be no dispute between us.
It's his continuing claim that his "sleights" were in fact good arguments that I am challenging, and you, PW, Bop and others are defending his claim. With argument? No, with more "sleights".
I'll respond to the sleights as long as they keep coming. I reserve the right to respond to the sleights first and save the arguments till later, so if you are anxious for me to pick up a substantive point someone has made, then perhaps you'd encourage them to take back the shit they've shovelled without shovelling anymore?
Talking of shit, this little pile turned up in your latest post; "puddle of pap" "trollishness" "tainted pungency". I won't rub your face in it, but just for a change, why not try retaliating with a proper argument which is actually on topic ...
I think you have argued that since
vm is a gracious host, I am obliged to swallow his
ad hominems. If that isn't what you are meant, please explain why you think "making an extended ad hominem [criticism?] against your gracious host all this time"
[link] is wrong.
Mick