Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument? (enemies)

[BrowserUk]

in reply to Re^2: What is "aggressive" argument? (enemies)
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

Strawmen all.

1. (if such perceptions are actually being claimed)

   Out of context, meaningless. In context--re-read the threads above--that is exactly the definition chosen by some.

2. With BrowserUk repeatedly using phrases like ...

   All those uses a) come after the fact; b) are either direct quotes or paraphrase others characterisations; c) are usually quoted to emphasis that either a) or b) or both are the case.

3. not who you imagine the author is secretly defending"

   No imagination is necessary. Just go back and inspect the records of you and others popping up in threads you've no previous involvement in; on subjects you've shown no particular interest in; 'in support of' indefensible statements.

   And you're still doing it.

   But, for at least the last 5 or so levels of the deep subthread in this thread, Argel has been exhibiting exactly the same passion, tenacity and strength of argument for which you've attacked me; but I see no sign of you wading in against him?

Another old saying: "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander!"

Ps. Keep this up and I'm going to start charging you on a per-use basis for using my handle.