"John Maxson" wrote:

You quickly disable rational overtures toward ethical
discussion.

Maxson slander and personal abuse.

You're here to discredit me and my book.

No, I asked questions.

You're looking for "debate;" I'm here for discussion.
If you can't "debate," you switch to the third-degree.

You resort to off-the-wall insults.

Pot, kettle, black.

You fail to stay on topic.

Pot, kettle, black.

Like Katz, you employ aggravation by repetition
(using the same rudely put, presumptive questions).

You continually refuse to answer direct questions.

Look, your conspiracy theories implicitly attack many people. You flood
these newsgroups on a daily basis with your conspiracy theories. The
way I see it, you have an obligation to answer the questions that are
posed to you about your conspiracy theories, unless you don't want your
conspiracy theories to be taken seriously.

Oh, the deceptively attributed alleged missive, that you never would
answer my questions about, after about a dozen posts several weeks ago
where I requested you to do that.

The way that you worded that missive, makes it unclear whether A. Ernest
Fitzgerald is speaking or merely citing what YOU said.

The fact that you refuse to clear up that issue after repeated requests,
makes me wonder if you are here for honest discussion, or else you're
just a common conspiricist.


Scott M. Kozel wrote
"John Maxson" wrote:

The subject title hasn't changed. If you're reduced
to changing the subject, you should change the title.

What difference would that make? You avoid inconvenient
questions, no matter what the thread header.