I've provided what seems to me an obviously valid explanation numerous times in past chapters. I guess I should try again in this chapter.
No, you have not addressed that post. That post was not an invitation for you simply to repeat your claims over and over. That post shows you
what's wrong with your claims. I want you to write a few sentences telling me how you plan to address each of the things that's wrong with your argument.
I allow myself 2 or 3 hours a day to devote to arguing with you guys...
Which, I guarantee, is far more than most or all your critics have to spend on it. I'm lucky to get half an hour a day for all the ISF threads I write in. Today I'm off work, so I can spend a bit more time.
Send Befuddled Old Man back to the green room. He no longer amuses me.
I can't justify (to my wife) using any more time.
Don't blame this on your wife. You have plenty of time to hunt back and compose large anthology posts. You have plenty of time to repeat yourself ad nauseam and perform countless fringe resets. The problem is clearly not how much time you have, but how you choose to spend that time. You claim you're interested in what's wrong with your argument. But your elective behavior simply says otherwise.
Jay is especially likely to include several in each post, and provide multiple posts in a row.
Right, blame Jay now. It's always everyone's fault but yours. I have to repeat myself a lot because you keep making the same mistakes. If you would address my comments when they were first made, I wouldn't have to keep repeating them.
In addition, whenever I ask Jay to specify something from the past, he fusses at me for being lazy and refuses to help.
And I will continue to refuse to help you in that way. Your critics are not obliged to indulge your pick-and-choose style of responses, or your propensity to ignore posts until they fall off the end of recent memory. We are your critics. We are not obliged to help you compensate for the consequences of your own choices.
Nevertheless you have several times recently been given the link back to the post I most wish you to address in its entirety. Blaming Jay doesn't make that fact go away.
I have offered (more than once) to use Jay as your side's spokesperson...
Correction: you have attempted to foist ground rules onto your opponents wherein they may have only one spokesman. You are here debating on this site according to this site's rules and conventions. If you cannot make headway under those circumstances, concede the debate and go spend time with your wife. No one is obliged to agree to your special terms, especially after you proved yourself unable to follow them.
The fact remains that I don't need to be some designated spokesman for you to read and respond to what I write. You simply choose not to, and now you're making up all sorts of
prima donna excuses in an attempt to justify that.
...but he can't deal with me dealing with only one or two sub-issues at a time, and still refuses to help.
I am your critic. I am not obliged to help you. I am obliged, in fact, to point out any error you might make, whether it's an error in your argument or an error in the way you present it. You deliberately ignore most of what's said to you. It's your choice to so do. Your critics are not responsible for correcting the consequences of your choices, should you suddenly decide that what someone once said is now relevant and you now wish to address it.
And no one is obliged to follow your agenda for debate, especially when we have years of data to show that your agenda-setting is merely a stunt to bog down the debate. You change subjects at will -- blaming your critics for it when you do. Since you can't follow your own agenda, your critics have no obligation to either.
So yes, my request that you address (at least briefly) each and every one of the fatal flaws I identified is specifically aimed to undermine the tactic you've used for five years to keep the discussion from reaching its logical conclusion. Enough is enough.
For some reason, no one here seems to accept the above as a reasonable excuse for my 'tardiness.'
That's right, no one is obliged to accept your excuses as reasonable or operative. You've had two months to engage the post to which everyone is referring you. Your unwillingness even to acknowledge its existence beyond fodder for your blog is not excused by any of the
prima donna nonsense you've spouted today.
Now quit stalling and quite whining. I've had quite enough of your immature complaints for one day.
