And like I said, you can stick your own head in the sand. But not mine or anyone else’s. Your comments show exactly why I said that you’re willfully ignorant. Because you choose to be.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Close your own eyes, mine are open.
Ya know... or maybe you don't... when
substance is on one's side, that's what they choose to use in a conversation as leverage... what, after all, could possibly be more persuasive? There is no better weapon to defend one's point(s) than
substance.
In this case, what did Stash do?
First, you suggested the other person (me) should google to find
substance that would test my assertion... you indicated it would be that simple to discover my assertion to be false. Not being as proud as you are (pardon that observation) and at the same time having the self-confidence of a person who doesn't depend on internet sports forum conversations in order to reassure himself of his value as a human being (
) I did that.
Didn't find what you suggested I would find, and said as much.
So, second, you responded to that by offering
substance, supposedly anyway, in the form of a link... a link that you indicated would provide the
substance that would debunk my assertion. Not being as proud as you are, yada yada yada.... I did that, too.
Didn't find what you suggested I would find. Again.
Moreover, worse yet, I had the audacity to actually
quote verbatim ("substance") the primary source in my response.
Your next decision was unfortunate in this exchange. You see, it's when someone decides
ad hominem is their
best possible choice for a response that we all learn one very critical thing about the other person in a conversation: They realize that the
substance isn't on their side.
And. When that happens, a person has a new choice... choose the sensible, graceful... intellectually humble... option... something in the area of "Okay, I'm the kind of person who is capable of backing down when I realize I've over-promised and under-delivered, and I have to give you that point".... or to bow one's back.... which is what you did. In this case, "bowing one's back" meant that ad hominem thing where you try to just insult the other person into submission... hehe... seems so strong when you're you, my friend, but on this side of it... weak.
Stephen's words were:
“It’s too early for me to address that yet. I mean, we’re continuing to have conversations.” That's from
your chosen link.
My words were that there was no primary source statement, only rumors.
Those words were/are accurate. You and "everyone" (hehe) are welcome to your interpretation, but your interpretation is, by definition, accepting assumptions that you do not have the omniscience as a mere mortal to be able to confirm as anything more than assumption.
I think we're done here, though I do suspect there will be some noble (?) effort to save face, given the Fonzie-like aversion to that word... "Richie, I was wrrrrnnn"... but
unless you have some new
substance to bring up, and certainly if all you've got is more ad hominem... I'm too old to be moved by that silliness and content that others will be similarly unimpressed.
