Re: Kroopologism on the rise? Oh no!

Scott Gardner said:

> >I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
> >(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
> >formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
> >years.

>       In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
> arguments to cover the similar examples you gave.  You said you
> wouldn't.  Fine.  That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.

You were "asking"? My mistake. It seemed that you were presuming. I
formed that opinion because of the language and punctuation you used.

> I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
> particular case.  You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
> were dealing with a person other than Krueger.  

I didn't say they made sense. Stop putting words in my mouth.

> I don't have near the
> experience that you do with Krueger.  

Well, we finally agree on something.

> If you are saying that he would
> not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
> better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
> "proof" of anything.

Now you're ignoring the words I *did* say.


> >Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
> >say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

> No, that's *not* what I meant.  

Don't like it much, do you?