John Williams wrote:
...
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobby<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle justified.
...
Arguing fairly and honestly is the way to have a discussion
with me.
You're still not getting it. I am not interested in discussing this
topic with you since you have called me dishonest, inflammatory,
incoherent, and told me how I should express myself. That is not the
way to get me interested in a discussion. This will be my final
response on the issue, unless you start a thread and convince me that
you are willing to consider that I might possibly have a reasonable
viewpoint on the issue (even if you disagree with my views), and that
you are genuinely interested in understanding my viewpoint.
John--
If you reread my posts, I believe you will notice
that I never actually called YOU dishonest, inflammatory
or incoherent. I have used those terms to describe
some of your methods of argument. Don't take it
personally?
I submit that the first step might be for you to
clearly articulate a viewpoint. I keep trying to
dig one out from what you write, only to have you
tell me that you "didn't say that".
As for your offlist email to me, notice that it fits
with what I'm saying. I did NOT call you names, but
said that your ACTIONS were arrogant. Which I'll stand
by.
> And it's
> arrogant on your part to keep asking others to dredge
> through the archives for your earlier posts.
[OFFLIST]
Seriously? You call me arrogant, because I don't want to discuss
something with you after you have repeatedly insulted me and my views?
You are quite a character yourself, sir.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
