Yes a contradiction now does exist which did not exist before my last post. Contradictions in argument are hardly likely to drive women away from the forums but emotional immaturity is.

You say I have ignored other possibilities other than an attempt by you to gain sympathy.

Here are some that you seem to think are possibilities –

“How do you know that it was not frustration? Or that I simply felt that it was relevant at the time?”

Frustration and simply feeling something are both feelings and the forum is not the place to sort out your feelings. It is a place to present arguments in regard to topics of discussion. You could have presented an argument as to why women do not post on OLO without bringing your own personal feelings into the argument. Your feelings are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

“Perhaps. It was, however, relevant to bullying - which I proposed as a reason for the departure of some.”

But we all know what bullying is. There is no need to establish that bullying is a bad thing by giving examples of what bullying is. Even if there was why would you choose personal examples when you run the risk of looking like you are trawling for sympathy? Surely you would want to avoid any ambiguity of purpose.

“Could you please cite your evidence for this claim? Remember to rule out all other possibilities.”

I have just ruled out two possibilities that you have offered. I can’t think of any other possibilities except a cry for help. Perhaps you can tell me some of the other possibilities you have in mind or indeed just tell me why you did what you did?

“However, personal experiences are always preferable.”

Why are they preferable? If they are good examples that illustrate the point and advance the argument then it does not matter that they are not personal. Personal examples always run the risk of being perceived as attempts to gain sympathy.

“Because I feel sympathy.”

I think you are lying.

No I'm not . apologise

Dear phanto,

The contradictions have always been there, unfortunately. I noted two others earlier.

<<Yes a contradiction now does exist which did not exist before my last post.>>

You can shift the focus of your words (between myself and others) or you can alter the meanings of your words/phrases (from time wastage to futility), but no matter which way you frame this, your actions remain contradictory in some way or another because an evasiveness is what is really occurring here.

<<Contradictions in argument are hardly likely to drive women away from the forums but emotional immaturity is.>>

Indubitably.

<<Frustration and simply feeling something are both feelings and the forum is not the place to sort out your feelings.>>

You may have a point with regards to frustration. However, much of our actions are guided by feelings. This cannot be outlawed. The standard you have set here is unreasonable.

<<You could have presented an argument as to why women do not post on OLO without bringing your own personal feelings into the argument.>>

Indeed, I did: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246453

<<Your feelings are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.>>

Indubitably.

<<But we all know what bullying is.>>

Indeed, we do.

<<There is no need to establish that bullying is a bad thing by giving examples of what bullying is.>>

Indeed. However, examples of it on OLO were relevant.

<<Surely you would want to avoid any ambiguity of purpose.>>

That is a good point.

<<I have just ruled out two possibilities that you have offered.>>

Unfortunately, as you should now be able to see, you did not.

<<… or indeed just tell me why you did what you did?>>

To provide examples of bullying on OLO.

<<Personal examples always run the risk of being perceived as attempts to gain sympathy.>>

This is a good point. I shall note it for the future. Thank you.

<<I think you are lying.>>

Why do you communicate with me if you think I am always lying? Perhaps it is only your good self telling untruths here?

//I think you are lying.//

Tuppence! Tuppence to see the Amazing Phanto, the only lie detector in the world worse than polygraphs!

Philips:

“However, much of our actions are guided by feelings. This cannot be outlawed. The standard you have set here is unreasonable.”

Nobody is outlawing anything. Feelings do guide our actions but they should not be substitutes for arguments. You should present an argument why women are not on OLO and not a presentation of your feelings.

“Indeed. However, examples of it on OLO were relevant.”

So you agree with me that bullying is readily understood but you say that examples are relevant. This is a contradiction.

“Unfortunately, as you should now be able to see, you did not.”

No I cannot see.

“To provide examples of bullying on OLO.”

But why provide examples that are open to being interpreted as a cry for help? It would be extremely careless. I do not believe you were so careless and so I can only conclude you were looking for sympathy.

“Why do you communicate with me if you think I am always lying? “

I do not think that you are always lying but I think you tell lies quite often and I am going to say when I think you are lying.

You have not convinced me that you were not looking for sympathy and I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do so. There is no point in this discussion for me any longer. Others can draw their own conclusions.

Dear phanto,

That was a figure of speech.

<<Nobody is outlawing anything.>>

Nobody has to be.

<<Feelings do guide our actions but they should not be substitutes for arguments.>>

Absolutely.

<<You should present an argument why women are not on OLO and not a presentation of your feelings.>>

Indubitably. That is precisely what I did.

<<So you agree with me that bullying is readily understood but you say that examples are relevant.>>

Correct.

<<This is a contradiction.>>

Not at all. Examples can help bring clarity to a situation.

<<No I cannot see.>>

Please re-read my last post then. I will be happy to clarify anything that you are not sure about.

<<But why provide examples that are open to being interpreted as a cry for help?>>

Because not all are so obtuse.

<<I do not believe you were so careless and so I can only conclude you were looking for sympathy.>>

Thank you, but my points bore relevance, so any carelessness was inconsequential.

<<You have not convinced me that you were not looking for sympathy and I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do so.>>

Unfortunately for your good self, it is not I who bares the burden of proof on that one. The burden of proof still rests with yourself.

<<There is no point in this discussion for me any longer.>>

That is a shame. Thank you for the discussion. As usual, it was thoroughly enjoyable, and I look forward to our next.