Philips:

“Well, you weren’t necessarily being obtuse at first, phanto.”

So if I wasn’t being obtuse then why did you get involved?

“If you think you were, though, then that’s a question you will need to ask Foxy.”

Why would I ask her? You are the one who raised the issue of my obtuseness. Why would I assume she has a problem with my obtuseness just because you do? Maybe there is something wrong with you.

“What motive does anyone have to discuss anything with you?”

You don’t seem to have a problem with a motive. You can’t stop yourself discussing things with me.

“Or a whole range of other possibilities: I may have been wrong about Foxy’s motives; you may not have been your usual obtuse self at first; Foxy may have hoped that she could inspire a more honest phanto… The possibilities are endless.”

So why not check with Foxy about her motives instead of projecting your own derision on to her? If I wasn’t obtuse then why get involved? How can you speak for Foxy’s motives about wanting to ‘inspire’ me? Why would she care about my inspiration she only needs to choose to respond to what I write not whether or not what I write is inspiring?

“Yes, and I bet she just feels all chewed up and spat out right now.”

It doesn’t matter how she feels it only matters what your intention was. It is your aggression in using her that counts not her response.

“You are yet to demonstrate that I have indeed used anyone.”

You have yet to demonstrate the moral fortitude to admit that you have.

I said, “at first”, phanto.

<<So if I wasn’t being obtuse then why did you get involved?>>

You see what I mean? So obtuse.

<<Why would I ask her? You are the one who raised the issue of my obtuseness.>>

Because I can’t speak for her. The fact that I raised the issue is irrelevant.

<<Why would I assume she has a problem with my obtuseness just because you do?>>

I never suggested you should. I merely listed it as a possible reason for her departure beyond your apparent assumption that you had her cornered.

<<Maybe there is something wrong with you.>>

Why? Because I find obtuse behaviour annoying and dishonest? Hardly.

<<You don’t seem to have a problem with a motive.>>

Yes, and I explained why in my answer to your question that I pre-empted earlier.

<<So why not check with Foxy about her motives instead of projecting your own derision on to her?>>

Because I’m not too interested in why.

You, on the other, evidently needed the possibility of other explanations pointed out to you. Had I merely informed you of the existence of other possibilities, without examples, you probably would have then asked for examples; but since I pre-empted that, you instead turn my examples back on me.

And therein lies the problem in dealing with obtuse people. Nothing you do is ever good enough.

<<How can you speak for Foxy’s motives about wanting to ‘inspire’ me?>>

I wasn’t. I was listing possibilities.

<<Why would she care about my inspiration …>>

You’d have to ask her that. Provided that’s even the case.

<<It is your aggression in using her that counts not her response.>>

Again, you are yet to demonstrate that I have indeed used anyone. Or that I have been aggressive, for that matter.

<<You have yet to demonstrate the moral fortitude to admit that you have [used Foxy].>>

I’ll do that just as soon as you demonstrate the truth of your claim.

In the meantime, thank you once again for another bizarre exchange; and a classic example of how you debate yourself into a tangle.

Dear AJ,

I now feel obliged to re-enter this discussion
briefly because I seem to be the cause of some
argument.

Of course I lost interest
and left because I saw how obtuse phanto was
becoming in this debate.

I didn't see the point in wasting any more of my time.
I had hoped for some useful comments not the uniformly
dull and repetitive ones I was getting. So after a while
I'd simply had enough.

You're to be Congratulated for your patience and tenacity.

I look forward to reading your posts (as always) on
another discussion. This one for me has well and truly run
its course.

Dear Foxy,

Don’t feel like you’ve caused anything. No one’s forcing phanto to make strange comments (or forcing me to respond to them), and nor should anyone be expected to foresee them, given how off-the-planet bizarre they can get.

--

phanto,

Since I’m here, I’d like to revisit this accusation that I’m a user to highlight a common tactic of yours which I find rather dishonest.

According to you, going by all the previous debates we’ve had, I want to take away people’s human rights, I want to sexually assault women, I want to discriminate against de facto couples, I like to watch people suffer, I’m a pervert who gets off on other people’s stories, and now I’ve used someone.

Now, what’s more likely? That I (or anyone, for that matter) am actually guilty of all these things (which would make me one of the worst people on the planet)? Or that slander is just part of your modus operandi?

You can only throw absurd accusations around for so long before no one takes you seriously anymore.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Why should you care if anyone takes you seriously?

Boring.

Foxy:

Funny how you found your voice after Philips told you what to think.

Philips:

Poor little victim you.

Actually, phanto, I never thought of it that way.

<<Poor little victim you.>>

I was more interested in the dishonesty of your behaviour. But now that you mention it, I guess I am a victim, in a way. I suppose I never thought of it like that because no one's forcing me to engage in your bizarre discussions, or put up with your wild accusations.