perhaps reality is?

[henry quirk]

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.

Age ain't the only one. Alexis & Iambiguous are two who wanna call the shots too.

[Iwannaplato]

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.

And one could ask him to demonstrate the truth or that or prove it (since so many people here seem to expect proofs). And then when questions, instead of the proof come, ask more questions. Not saying it would work, but it might take less time.

Another way I look at this is there are a couple of posters who enter a thread and when engaged with somehow end up pulling one or more people off into a tangent, often rather personal. If you pull away, they declare victory, since, of course the only possible reason one ever disengages is because one is afraid or realizes one is beaten (they don't seem to question themselves about this ASSUMPTION). Had to capitalize that....

[Iwannaplato]

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.

Age ain't the only one. Alexis & Iambiguous are two who wanna call the shots too.

An important part of being effective at this is to make it seems like you are responding. IOW quote parts and write responses. But, in problem cases, what happens after time, is the onus is all on you. The other person gets to assume stuff, implicitly or explicitly accuse you of things, not really respond to the points you made, not justify their own positions, while you run around treating their posts as if they responded to you and as if they were both on topic and taking responsibility for their own justification.

[Harbal]

Age ain't the only one. Alexis & Iambiguous are two who wanna call the shots too.

There are quite a few people here who take themselves far too seriously.

[henry quirk]

Age ain't the only one. Alexis & Iambiguous are two who wanna call the shots too.

There are quite a few people here who take themselves far too seriously.

Yeah, I'm guilty of that.

[henry quirk]

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.

Age ain't the only one. Alexis & Iambiguous are two who wanna call the shots too.

An important part of being effective at this is to make it seems like you are responding. IOW quote parts and write responses. But, in problem cases, what happens after time, is the onus is all on you. The other person gets to assume stuff, implicitly or explicitly accuse you of things, not really respond to the points you made, not justify their own positions, while you run around treating their posts as if they responded to you and as if they were both on topic and taking responsibility for their own justification.

Yeah, I'm probably guilty of this too.

[Harbal]

Yeah, I'm guilty of that.

No you ain't, henry. You are just fine the way you are.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I'm guilty of that.

No you ain't, henry. You are just fine the way you are.

Of course I am, but I ain't perfect (damn close, though).

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, I'm probably guilty of this too.

We all are. I mean, maybe there are some exceptions, but I would think everyone does it now and then. But there are certain posters who do it so much that the conversation becomes more or less exactly the same, regardless of the topic of the thread. I think on some level it's a one trick pony symptom. There is one message they want people to get and one emotion they want them to feel. The message might be: You're right, it all sucks, my hope and optimism or lack of depression was just held up by lies, now I am in the abyss with you. Hopelessness, depression, head down. Or it might be, you're right I shouldn't say anything, because anything I say has assumptions in it, including assumptions about other people. Guilt, shame, head down.

Anything short of that is going to trigger the exact same repetition from these peopley, on and on and on.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I'm probably guilty of this too.

We all are. I mean, maybe there are some exceptions, but I would think everyone does it now and then. But there are certain posters who do it so much that the conversation becomes more or less exactly the same, regardless of the topic of the thread. I think on some level it's a one trick pony symptom. There is one message they want people to get and one emotion they want them to feel. The message might be: You're right, it all sucks, my hope and optimism or lack of depression was just held up by lies, now I am in the abyss with you. Hopelessness, depression, head down. Or it might be, you're right I shouldn't say anything, because anything I say has assumptions in it, including assumptions about other people. Guilt, shame, head down.

Anything short of that is going to trigger *the exact same repetition from these peopley, on and on and on.

*biggy!

[Iwannaplato]

*biggy!

I take the fifth in regards to whom I may or may not have been analyzing. They may have been completely imagined characters.

[henry quirk]

*biggy!

I take the fifth in regards to whom I may or may not have been analyzing. They may have been completely imagined characters.

[Age]

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

ANOTHER ASSUMPTION MADE, and ANOTHER CONCLUSION JUMPED TO,

And totally justified, as it turned out.

Not at all. So, this other assumption and conclusion of yours here is completely and utterly wrong and false, as well.

You seem to very frustrated here now that I have already proved irrefutably true that what you have been saying and claiming here has just been self-contradictory.

[Age]

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

His response will most likely be a question. Pardon the probable obviousness of this.

Another one who makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions off of their own assumptions, but which are totally wrong and incorrect.

As, once again, proved irrefutably true and right.

But if in a dialogue your interlocutor primarily challenges most things you say with a question, then you are put in the position of continually defending yourself (answering the questions) or running away (which is how he couched my deciding to no longer engage with him) or perhaps simply not responding. It's a philosophy forum, that's a specific kind of context. Someone asks for justification, it seems part of an invisible contract to answer. So, exasperation is a possible outcome.

Does this mean questions are wrong? Obviously not. And look what Socrates was like?

But then: What was Socrates ratio of accusation to 'hey, let's see where this leads'?

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

If one comes here wanting to say and claim some 'thing' is true, right, or correct, then I suggest that they CHECK that it is absolutely true, right, or correct. This is because there might just be some one else who actually KNOWS, without doubt, what the actual and irrefutable truth is, regarding that topic of discussion.

Therefore, what this essentially means is if one wants to claim some 'thing' is true here, then be prepared to be questioned and challenged over it. And, if one had 'checked' thoroughly about what they want to say and claim here, then they would not falter nor flaw in being questioned nor challenged.

For example, I will make the claim and say that 'Reality' IS, 'that' what is actually possible. And, now I am prepared to be questioned and challenged over this.

So, please if absolutely any one would like to question and challenge me over this, then please go ahead.

[Age]

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.

But I do NOT think this, at all.

So, your assumption here is wrong, again. Which means that your conclusion here is also wrong, as well.