It seems my opening sidenote has caused a stir. I really didn’t think much of it, I was just being open. I figured gotlucky deserved to know he’s the only reason you got a reply. (Everyone needs to feel special sometime I guess).
I used the present-tense “grow” to make a statement about the typical discussion with you. Not just this one in particular. I honestly was never trying to “goad” you into anything. Indeed our conversations always begin with you jumping into threads to respond to posts I make. And besides, if I were trying to express a statement about this interaction in particular I would have said “I’ve grown tired”.
But sure I offered a full response. As I said I had no intention of responding, but thanks to gotlucky expressing his interest, I decided to go ahead and do so. If I was gonna bother with responding at all I might as well address everything.
It’s nice that you finally acknowledge that Molyneux’s narcissism was the theme of my post all along, (thus basically admitting your earlier mischaracterization in which you so pretentiously seemed to try to claim I focused on his narcissism for a single “argument”). But you have actually finally made one correct observation, that pointing out Molyneux’s ridiculous narcissism is actually less boring that his horrible arguments. You throw in the phrase “trying to understand” his arguments, but of course, we’ve shown that it is in fact you who has trouble understanding them…I just find them, well, bad. So yes, pointing out a large part of what makes Molyneux such a douchebag (and calling out some flaws and straw men along the way) is much less boring than trying to contort his incredibly poor “arguments” into something logical and reasonable. But of course, you would know more about the latter than I would.
It’s also kind of silly (laughably ironic, in fact) how you would accuse me of “continued participation” after “protestations”…when it is you who has shown such pedantic attention to accuracy in statements. I’ll again call attention to the entire segment of your previous post in which you highlight the “s” in “arguments” and proceed to talk about plurals vs. singulars, etc. And yet here in this very next post you accuse me of “protestations”.
As I said, I had virtually no intention of responding to your nonsense until gotlucky took the time to create a post solely to signal his interest in the discussion. With that I decided to actually offer a response. In that response I simply offered a sidenote for gotlucky to mentioned the only reason it appeared at all.
And here you characterize me of “continued participation” after “protestations”, as if I had said “I’m never responding to you again” and then offered another response and said “okay now I’m done”, and then yet another response and said “okay I really mean it this time”, etc. It was a single post in which I mentioned I wasn’t going to bother creating one until a third party expressed interest in it.
I fail to see even one “protest” here, but I would be very interested for you to show me the multiple instances of this “protest” against participation.
But don’t worry. I won’t hold my breath.