This story is unavailable.

“You have studiously failed to elucidate any substantive response to my arguments.”

Amusing. I have been very clear. You are in a forum devoted to writing and writers. It is expected for a writer to attribute a common phrase, particularly from a prominent historical figure. There is no argument, it was an observation.

There are no excuses, no provisions or exceptions for someone who lays claim to any degree of erudition. Try running any text using that phrase through the software used on most campuses to detect plagiarism. Although I am not claiming that it is truly plagiarism, it IS deceptive.

you reject, out-of-hand everything that does not comport with your, infallible, world.”

Hmmm. Show me where I have claimed or implied that I am infallible. No? You can’t? Why didn't I guess that? I said that if new data, evidence shows me to be wrong, I will cheerfully admit it. How is that claiming to be infallible. The only person I know who claims to be infallible is that guy from the Vatican, the one with the funny hat.

“If you had even the slightest ability to engage in introspective analysis we would never have reached this point.”

Absolute nonsense. I constantly engage in retrospective analysis. It is a large part of how I assess the world around me. What I don’t do is spew every thought or the processes involved in reaching it out into a public forum. Why would I? Why would anyone?

I demonstrated the falsity of your argument from infallibility by three different methods: directly, by metaphor, and by exploiting a commonly held belief (that all retired pastors are men).”

You demonstrated nothing. You just waffled. BTW, why would you assume that most people believe all retired pastors to be men? Clearly you have no idea how popular shows like the Vicar of Dibley are.

Fair dinkum?

What ancient text did you dig that up from? Or was it a ’40s movie starring Chips Rafferty? I have never heard a modern Australian use it.

If all you wish to do is waffle on and segue into non-relevant rejoinders I think this exchange is closed. Little point continuing. I have made my position clear, and as nothing new and relevant has been brought into focus, it will not change. Not attributing is poor practice, and trying to insist that others re-assess (revisit) all opinions without providing new data is sadly comical. Few people with fully functioning logical intellects would have need to do so.

If I seem less than polite it is because people who waffle and segue without purpose are a waste of time. Do really think that if you keep repeating, or rewording your response that I’ll suddenly agree?

What is ironical is that this started because I made it clear that I do not change my mind without new VALID data, yet all you have done is to try changing my mind without adding anything new.

A small hint for you…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.