And you disagreed, the implication being that his willingness is linked to the rightness of the DP.
Implication is just you putting a new coat (of paint, restating, to help out) on last post's "inference" and it's just as mistaken for the reasons set out clearly enough in rebuttal.
Oh, so now you don't disagree.
I'm not the one with a consistency problem...okay, that's not fair. You're consistently and observably dedicated to misstatement and hanging onto a wrong idea so you can do the "I finally got one" dance, but there's just no music for you here.
Supra.
That says nothing about his willingness,
Sure it does, as noted prior.
You say it does make a difference:
Right. I've said that a couple of times now, along with why. The why is the really important part.
This is to invoke the fallacy of non sequitur. It does not follow.
It does, but you don't appear to, which is a bit different. I only just told you why and noted where the trouble is found (hint: it's in your inference and insistence). Okay, so that was more than a hint, but given you don't appear to have understood a single sentence answering each of these previously offered claims of yours, you can understand why I'd think that.
:think: Or maybe you can't.
Who knows what weird spin you want to put on the conversation
It's not a spin, it's a perspective, a proffer, an argument. That sort of thing. And the answer is anyone who reads me with an eye toward understanding the point.
or where it's hidden within your impenetrable dialogue.
I get that many people aren't active readers, and can have difficulty with anything not written in fairly simple, conversational English. That's what the magazine bit I wrote referenced. They (magazines) are typically written on an 11th grade level. Complex enough to carry some reasonably profound ideas, but simple in structure and demand. They aren't densely packed and don't require the reader to bring much to the reading.
Those people should probably find someone else to talk to or invest themselves in raising their bar, because I'll water a bit, illustrate to help, and even revisit a thing if called upon, but when I'm dealing with people who don't really respond differently to simplicity or complexity, to illustration and/or explanation, who don't give any indication that they're invested in understanding regardless, who habitually misrepresent either effort, well, I'm going to suit myself and write at my conversational level without regard for theirs. That may seem impenetrable, but it isn't.
No, for the reasons given the last time you apparently nodded off instead of reading. Or couldn't figure out how the verb worked. Something like that.
If you actually thought that was veiled it would explain a few things.
'Your response was a logical fallacy.
No, again, it wasn't and for the reasons given the last time you wrote that. Well, in the last post. You wrote it again a couple of times in this one.
You asked for clarification of where you went wrong
You should probably quote that part. God knows you're struggling with paraphrase.
