Senmayan

relative incorrectness (because if what you say were true, you wouldn't have kept replying to me all day, dragging this story out until the last moment with a "from what pulpit") and anyway, it denotes falseness, now I can say it.

Alright, let's pretend it's like that, but anyway your attitude is masochistic (in case, I doubt it is), because you continue a discussion all day and you only come out with that message now! Let's pretend it's like that, my opinions about you don't change, because the fact remains that you don't accept confrontation from those who think differently than you and you judge people instead of the message, and the fact that you haven't gotten to the point until now demonstrates your unfairness.

Eeh! Of course, yours is a spiteful attitude... we write dozens of messages and you, after dozens of messages, pull out a response I threw out months ago? Why didn’t you do it earlier (and indeed you had to go dig through the discussion) and then you have the nerve to say that you repaid me in my own coin? Why didn’t you say it before, instead of talking nonsense all day long? Why did you go and dig through a discussion from months ago and hit the jackpot finding my comment made out of the unfairness you mentioned! It really smells a lot like Gestapo methods, discredit the opponent and discuss the messenger instead of the message, that way it discredits itself! Don’t you see how pathetic you are? Did you read my previous response? No, this is your monologue, I got it!

Freudian slip "I will avoid passing judgments on your person" eeh, the temptation is strong.

In that discussion, you were the epitome of unfairness, accusing Mazzucco of exploiting people with gullibility and nonsense, without having certainly watched any of his documentaries or knowing the person; otherwise, you wouldn't speak this way, accusing someone of trying to deceive people. All this has disqualified you in my eyes because you have made absolute falsehoods, and despite that, in this discussion, I avoided my initial instinctive response of "dull or bad faith," because I don't know you, and I will refrain from making other personal judgments.

You said you didn't want to continue the discussion, but you're even going through a past debate, which is a bit unsettling: the fact is that if someone denies even facts reported in a written document black on white while diverting the topic (like the document on the project for a new American century), some questions about that person arise. Besides the fact that I am ready to admit that it was a wrong and instinctive response, in this discussion I no longer allowed myself to make personal judgments about you, especially since we haven't discussed anything (unlike the past discussion), because you preferred to accuse me of bad faith, without any basis, avoiding confrontation! What should I tell you, that I also played your same game in a previous discussion? At least there we weren't discussing air, and as I've already said, I take back those adjectives I used about you, because I don't know you, the problem is that you are not ready to do the same!

No, in the last message you avoided personal judgments, at least on the surface; that’s the difference! Anyway, I have never discussed my ideas on this site, rather theories and opinions, which is something different. Bye!

You made a more balanced intervention compared to previous ones, and for me, we can end it here! I also have no interest in continuing to talk to you. The adjectives like anti-democratic, etc., you brought upon yourself given your behavior, and you have said worse about me (and used the same adjectives), which is why I really hope not to have to confront you again; fortunately, the feeling is mutual, and I won't say anything more to avoid stirring up further controversy, as those who want to understand will understand. Best regards!

Don't turn things around; you have never discussed my ideas in this post, never ever. If you had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You could have simply said, "Look, regarding the Dalai Lama, you're talking nonsense, you've got it wrong," or not responded at all. Instead, you made accusations against me (and I know why you used this method), avoiding a confrontation between the concepts presented in this review. To me, it seems quite undemocratic that you are willing to discuss as long as you are in agreement, but if someone holds different views, they are acting in bad faith... too convenient, isn’t it? We don't live in an Orwellian society, so don't flip the concepts. Rebelde, unlike you, is a civil person; we didn't agree on the review, and we simply expressed our opinions without accusing each other of bad faith. If you limit yourself to saying, "For me, you said nonsense, and I don't want to talk about it anymore," then for me, the discussion can be considered definitively closed because I’m frankly tired of talking to someone like you, and I get annoyed having to defend myself against personal accusations. Let's stop this little game because you're not making a good impression, and everything is taking on a somewhat grotesque aspect!

I watched it recently, really a nice movie! Great review, it summarizes the essence of the film in a few words and helped me understand details that I had missed!