Amy, you have had many, many opportunities to post your opinions and comments over on VTC. One little time that I take down a snarky little remark from you and you go ballistic!
How is it even possible to mangle your words and meanings when you have free access to correct and respond to anything I might write?
As for being reasonable, I am more than willing to listen, read and participate in any topic you want to discuss. I have even invited you to pick the topic. You already know that you will have free reign to comment (which is more than you have ever afforded me here BTW).
I would appreciate it if you'd quit acting as if you have been some sort of injured party. Just to be clear, you have removed my posts or prevented them from even being published (a la Candy style) and then went public in calling me a fool. So whatever Amy. Seems you like to dish it out, but can't seem to take it.
7 comments:
Seriously...re Amy: you're only realizing this about her NOW????
Wow, all of these are things I said to you previously. Is that your new tactic, just copying my words and sending them back to me?
Kelly and Bethany are doing a MUCH better job of discussion their opinions without being rude and childish. Maybe you should just stick to your catholic circus articles.
Amy, this is simply a cut and paste of a comment that I just put on your blog today - you know, in case you decided not to publish it.
Remember- this is one of the purposes of this blog - to document comments that otherwise would simply disappear into the cyber circular file.
That said, I notice you really respond to anything I wrote; you just attacked again which is apparently all I apparently can expect from you by way of discussion.
No, no, no. You're trying to change the meaning of what I said. I was not referring to the fact that this comment was also posted as a comment on my blog, but the fact that the accusation you made were all points I had brought up previously about your argumenting style.
I had stopped reading all your comments because you were being so snide, and then you promised you could be civil, and I thought I would give you a second chance. You have just proven over and over that my initial decision was correct.
You have a tendency YOURSELF of not answering the whole question, like why your supposed questions were copied from my post. Again, let those who do a better job defend your faith because you make a mess of it.
No, no, no. You're trying to change the meaning of what I said. '
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I'm not having the same understanding of what you said that you do. I'm not deliberately trying to change your meaning. In fact I'm spending way too much time and effort trying to understand them!
I was not referring to the fact that this comment was also posted as a comment on my blog, but the fact that the accusation you made were all points I had brought up previously about your argumenting style.
I'm not even sure what that means. Perhaps our styles are similar?
I had stopped reading all your comments because you were being so snide, and then you promised you could be civil, and I thought I would give you a second chance.
If you weren't reading them, then how could you judge them as being snide? I think it's pretty clear from the responses I put up on this blog to Candy, that I'm clear cut and straight forward and don't need to rely on logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks to get my point across.
Of course, since you disposed of all of mycomments to you, I really have no way of defending myself. Readers will have to judge for themselves.
You have just proven over and over that my initial decision was correct.
oh... groan. Do what you gotta do then. I can't change your mind.
You have a tendency YOURSELF of not answering the whole question, like why your supposed questions were copied from my post.
Oh that's easy. I read your post and of course I found it full of mischaracterizatios and out right lies. So of course I found it offensive. After I cooled down though I thought I would still like to address it, but I wanted to do it in a matter-of-fact way addressing each talking point by itself in away that would not be inflammatory or acusatory. I graciously decided to keep your name out of it. But if you want to out yourself, that's your perogative.
Again, let those who do a better job defend your faith because you make a mess of it.
Well that's your opinion. I have 600 folks a day flocking here who see some value in it.
I said before that you were acting like the wounded dog, and now you say I am. I said you could dish it out but couldn't take it, and now you say that of me.
You were being snide when I allowed you to post your debate, and so I STOPPED reading your comments. Only after your promise that you could debate without being childish did I allow your comments, and I was met with your regular old snotty attitude.
I don't see anything clear cut and straight forward from you excepet anger. I think you must sound different in your own head than you do in print.
Also, I am about 6 of those 600 people each day, because I have been honestly and open-mindedly reading what Kelly and Bethany have to say. I said before I have no problem with honest debate, just the way you turn it into a personal venegnce.
And since when have you been gracious about anything, excpet to those who agree with you? You were posting my words before, even when I was completely ignoring your comments because I did not wish to continue the discussion with you. Actually, you made subtle changes to my words to make them appear to be something other than what they were. That was why I was calling you on it, not because you were disagreeing.
Hope you got that off your chest and are feeling much better Amy. Thanks for your comments. I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
Post a Comment