> Is that your "objective opinion" Mikey??? Here's what you do then. Find
> someone (I'd say a friend, but we know you don't have any) to read some
> of the "exchanges" between you and **anyone** else in this forum. Then
> ask that individual to be bluntly honest with you and to evaluate the
> dialogue between you and your protagonist as to: wit, coherence of
> thought, literary elocution, logical context, readability,
> entertainment value, and positive contribution to the philosophy forum.
> Get back to me on the results...
>
> Oh, are you wondering why I gave the option to use your diatribes with
> **anyone**. You'd be severely handicapped picking the ones against me
> (but that would be my "subjective" opinion)
>
> Always a pleasure doing business with the forum idiot,
> K e v
>
> Oh and to evaluate your one statement (which is logically "false")
>
> I say:
> "I never have to think about anything when replying to you; just
> laugh.."
> you say:
> "Thats a lie, you've never made a witty comment about any of them
> yet."
>
> Your subjective viewpoint about the extent of my wit, while irrelevant,
> is not fallacious; however your assertion that it's a lie is without
> merit. It would require your knowledge that I knew what I was posting
> was witless and then I claimed some kind of credit for it as an example
> of extreme humor.
>
> Additionally, your statement is logically incoherent, if I've somehow
> misinterpreted your "thought" (like you actually have them) and you
> meant: it's a lie about me having to think when I respond to you and
> I really **do need** to be at my sharpest to contend with a mental
> giant like yourself. In that instance, the second phrase has no logical
> connection with the first three words.