Bart Verheggen Says: March 6, 2015 at 17:59
Citizen and cjw, You’ve both said what you wanted to say it seems, let’s leave it at that. The current conversation is no longer constructive.
I appreciate that I’m a bit irritating to some of you more serious educated folks. Still, my little thing is to really get inside the structure of the rhetorical manipulation going on – study it at close range, learn to understand it, watch it in action and hopefully from time to time be able to write about it and explain it along with highlighting it’s intellectual bankruptcy.
March 3, 2015 at 20:37 @citizenschallenge cjw: “I skimmed the article and initially failed to get the gist of it. The text is poorly structured and the writing style unappealing. Not to mention the irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science.”~ ~ ~
(For what it’s worth, I’ve been engaging their contrarian games going back to the days when Letters to the Editor via USPS was all there was, as they say I been around.)
Nowhere does cjw offer specific examples or critique. Instead what you’ll find is a flow of demeaning insults intended to make clear I’m too worthless to even consider communicating with, though cjw’s the one that initiated our exchange. Skim though it, if I'm wrong, show me where.
cjw always baiting and pulling attention away from the substance of what she was allegedly taking issue with. Making me the issue, rather than my words, you know like, quoting from my essay and then explaining why I was wrong. Instead, self-anointed superiority and certitude. It’s an age old tactic that continues to work all too well.
And Bart, I very much appreciate your allowing me to share my lengthy thoughts on your platform https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com.