> On May 1, 10:47 am, Bernard live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Apr 30, 4:44 pm, tension_on_the_wire yahoo.com>
>> wrote:

>

>>> As far as your brilliant lesson in logic goes, I'm afraid even the
>>> best logician will go wrong if he starts with the wrong premise.

>

>> The lesson doesn’t seem to have sunk in.  Your attempted logical
>> analysis (below) is simply incoherent.  You don’t even grasp the
>> elementary distinction between logical validity and truth.

>

>>> The
>>> first premise was not that Bernard thinks TOTW is uncool.  The first
>>> premise was that Bernard made the false assumption that TOTW must be
>>> lying about their education.  With that false assumption, Bernard
>>> decides TOTW is uncool.  Since TOTW is in fact more educated than has
>>> yet been mentioned in any of these posts so far, and since the post
>>> itself had no phrases in it to directly offend anyone, the logical
>>> conclusion is that Bernard has certain internal issues which have
>>> impaired his judgement about TOTW's education.  Since it is logical
>>> that Bernard cannot possibly have based any of this on actual
>>> knowledge about TOTW, it stands to reason that Something in that first
>>> post struck a point of great sensitivity in Bernard.  Since there were
>>> none of the supposed vain pretensions you keep going on about in that
>>> first post, it can only be that the topic itself offended Bernard's
>>> very soul.

>

>> You have the reading comprehension skills of a drooling retard.

>

>> I’ve questioned your intelligence, not your veracity.  I didn't say
>> you were lying about about having memorized Horton Hears a Who or
>> having learned to play the violin.  Why would I or anybody doubt such
>> claims?  You’re so full of yourself that you think the only possible
>> reaction to your boasts is awestruck incredulity.

>
> Thank you for quoting me accurately so everyone can read again exactly
> how logical my previous statement was.
> The more your language deteriorates, and the ad hominem attacks begin,
> the easier it is for everyone to see how totally without argument you
> are.  I'm also going to point out how dishonest you are, as well, by
> quoting here the various claims you have made about what it is you are
> really trying to say.  They seem to change daily.
>
> 1. "Anything else you'd like us to know about you?  Poetry awards you
> won, SAT scores, how many languages you speak, the number of times you
> made the dean's
> list in college? "  ---either I was claiming to be well-educated, or I
> was not...which is it?  In this quote you appear to think that I am
> making this claim and you made a response in your inimitible "ironical
> style".  If I was not claiming to be well-educated, then why did you
> write this post in the first place?  You cannot call this a
> questioning of my intelligence since nothing in your list is a measure
> of intelligence but only an indicator of education.  My theory as to
> why you wrote this post has, of course, been made abundantly clear in
> previous posts and it has nothing to do with your questioning
> anything, but your inability to refrain from the urgings of your
> sorely provoked ego.
>
> 2.  "As a matter of fact, you have only scratched the surface."  My
> quote, in response to your above quote.  --was I or was I not claiming
> to be well-educated, upon your incomparably rude sarcasm?
>
> 3.  "Oh, I've no doubt that's true.  I'm sure there's a myriad of
> equally impressive achievements that your modesty prevents you from
> mentioning. "  Either this quote, from you, indicated honest
> admiration (obviously not) or your "ironical" version of skepticism
> about my educational achievements, whatever they may be. Again, there
> is nothing in this post to denote doubt about my intelligence.  I note
> that you expressed this skepticism without actually hearing any
> specific claims of mine, by the way.  The mark of a true ignoramus.
>
> 4. " Whatever or whoever you think I am, this tension-on-the-wire
> character has got to be the most pretentious, self-congratulatory
> windbag to show up at RMB in the last decade."  Now you have changed
> your tune.  You are no longer showing sarcasm, but a direct statement
> of pure dislike of my personality that mentions absolutely nothing
> about my intelligence.  You were not questioning my intelligence but
> my apparent arrogance.  Arrogance that you assigned based upon your
> inital response to me which was, once again, based on my education,
> which you seem to resent most highly.
>
> 5.  "I wasn't suggesting it's uncool to be educated; I was suggesting
> that it's ridiculous of you to think that anyone here is going to be
> impressed with your vain pretensions to intellectual superiority."
> Now, for the first time in the thread, you openly accuse me of both
> lack of intelligence and pretending to intellectual superiority, and
> if that is not an accusation against my veracity, then what is?
> Pretentious means pretending to be what one is not.  That is an
> accusation against truthfulness.  The fact that you have, most
> recently, denied questioning my veracity makes you the one who is
> lacking in integrity, not I.  I need not add that I have already
> responded to the dishonesty of the entire claim in this quote, and
> that you did, indeed, suggest it was uncool to be educated, regardless
> of what you might have intended, by your choice of language with which
> to accost me in the first place.
>
> 6.  "As a virtuoso violinist you ought to know that no such instrument
> existed in Nero's time."  I have already responded to the
> inappropriateness and dishonesty of manipulating my words into non-
> existent claims, so again, you are the one who is stretching the truth
> at every opportunity in your desperate attempt at one-upmanship.  You
> also seem to have failed to notice that every time you have tried to
> correct my point of view to your flawed one, you fail miserably, yet
> insist that I am the one writing unintelligently.  Denial, and not
> surprising, at this point.
>
> 7.  "OK, I’ll state this simply, without irony, in terms that I hope
> you can understand.  I do not think you are well-educated; hence, I am
> not criticizing you for being well-educated or envying your
> educational accomplishments."  Ah, finally, he comes out with a direct
> accusation.  What?  Oh, my, it's a questioning of my veracity!!  What
> a surprise!  You do not think I am well-educated?  I'm not sure what
> could have given you that idea!!  But once again, you are lying about
> your previous claims.
>
> 8.  "My expression of admiration for your writing style was ironical.
> I don’t think you write well. I think you write in the awkward, turgid
> style of someone who wants very badly to be regarded as intelligent"
> Now, finally, late in the game, he decides he isn't going to get
> anywhere questioning my education since he realizes he has absolutely
> no grounds to question what I have not made any detailed claims about,
> and thinks he'll go for the jugular and say what's really bothering
> him.  Just so you know, telling me that you think I "want very badly
> to be regarded as intelligent" is as good as admitting that this is
> what bothers you most....that I might be regarded as intelligent in an
> arena where you, obviously, are not.  Remarks like that usually come
> from people who themselves want very badly to be regarded as
> intelligent and are highly resentful of others who are.  I'm very
> sorry, from the depths of my heart, if I have wandered onto your turf
> and made you look foolish in front of your acquaintances.  As I
> mentioned before, I have no interest in shoving myself into rmb, I'm
> only incidentally cross-posting from amp-f, but that doesn't mean I
> won't rise to the bait when someone as tempting as you comes along.
>
> 9.  Now we come to this current post in which you compound your
> dishonesty by lying about what you questioned in the first place,
> pretending that I am insisting that I didn't lie about Horton, for
> God's sake.  As I have amply demonstrated, you are accusing me of
> lying about my well-educated status, not about Horton, but it is not
> the first time you have deliberately misunderstood me in order to
> present a false "logical" statement to try and make me look like the
> "drooling retard" you are so desperate to paint me out to be.  Please
> do understand that every time you post, you allow me another
> opportunity to prove how wrong you obviously are.  I can go on like
> this till the cows come home, my friend, and as long as it amuses me,
> I might just do that.  Anyone who is bored with my long "War and
> Peace" novellettes is more than welcome to killfile me, so there's no
> fear that I am chewing up valuable space in your newsgroup in my very
> enjoyable pastime of annoying you to no end.
>
> --tension- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -