Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Why not? You've been unreasonable about what LS teaches, whats the difference?
you claimed to be objective with us when the entire time you have been obviously an apologist FOR LS
|
I'm not being an apologist for LS. I am merely trying to argue from what I would think would be his point of view with the resources available to me. I am also giving the man the benefit of the doubt, which is something you are not willing to do. This, IMO, is a reasonable approach. I have attempted to reason with you, or whoever, as to why LS may say things or word things the way he does, and the motivation behind his methodology in appealing to illustrations, anecdotes, resources, and verbiage others are taking issue with him over.
If my "arguments", "spin", and reasoning cannot hold up under critical and objective scrutiny and reasoning (not just debate tactics), I would consider conceding the point. So far, the best attempts I've seen to dislodge my advocating on LS' behalf have been nothing but ad hominem, non sequitur, strawman, red herring, misrepresentation, insult, and attempts at intimidation. Everything you have been crediting me with doing, you are doing as well. I'm not against moving above this kind of tactical exchange, but I perceive that is the extent to which you desire to converse, and if that is the case then
it is what it is. Until someone is ready to reason with me, instead of just debate, I'll continue to advocate in LS behalf.
Threaded Mode
