Why I believe in Talking Snake

Originally posted by @fmf
You can call it trolling if you want. But if I decline to answer a question, and give you my reason, regardless of whether or not you are satisfied with that reason, the question is declined. And you know why. There is no onus on me to prove anything with regard to my reason for declining to answer, regardless of whether the exchange is trolling or not trolling.

Oh yes I know exactly why you decline to answer questions. You are too proud to admit when you are wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Oh yes I know exactly why you decline to answer questions. You are too proud to admit when you are wrong.

Pride has got nothing to do with it.

And I don't think I have been "wrong" in our discussions, so I don't have to "admit" anything.

I have given you my reason for declining to answer certain questions. You have the reason why I am declining.

You don't need to attribute a reason of your own to why I refuse to play along with what I see as a conversational gimmick.

If you don't think you are using a gimmick, fine, all well and good. But the question has been declined for the reason I give. So that's that. Move on.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’m not prickly or defensive at all.

Then why all this school room banter about “medicine” being “fished out”. You come across as a oily teenager.

Originally posted by @fmf
Pride has got nothing to do with it.

And I don't think I have been "wrong" in our discussions, so I don't have to "admit" anything.

I have given you my reason for declining to answer certain questions. You have the reason why I am declining.

You don't need to attribute a reason of your own to why I refuse to play along with what I see as a conversat ...[text shortened]... ell and good. But the question has been declined for the reason I give. So that's that. Move on.

According to your logic someone could just claim that they have already answered a question in the past whenever they face a question that they don't want to answer and they don't have to provide any evidence that they have done so, is that correct? The onus is on the person asking the question to prove that the question hasn't been asked before (which is impossible to prove) and not on the person dodging the question (which is possible for them to prove if they are telling the truth)?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
According to your logic someone could just claim that they have already answered a question in the past whenever they face a question that they don't want to answer and they don't have to provide any evidence that they have done so, is that correct? The onus is on the person asking the question to prove that the question hasn't been asked before (which is ...[text shortened]... person dodging the question (which is possible for them to prove if they are telling the truth)?

I believed you were dicking with me. I refused to jump through your hoop. I declined to answer. However you choose to see it or the rights and wrongs of it, those of your questions I felt were gimmicky were declined, end of story. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Question declined: move on. Make of it what you want.

Originally posted by @fmf
I believed you were dicking with me. I refused to jump through your hoop. I declined to answer. However you choose to see it or the rights and wrongs of it, those of your questions I felt were gimmicky were declined, end of story. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Question declined: move on. Make of it what you want.

Your card is well and truly marked. According to your logic you can dodge any question you want and label it gimmicky.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
According to your logic someone could just claim that they have already answered a question in the past whenever they face a question that they don't want to answer and they don't have to provide any evidence that they have done so, is that correct?

If you ask me a question and I say I have already answered it in the past and I am not interested in answering it again, I don't have to provide any evidence that I have done so, and even if you think that I declined to answer the question because I didn't want to answer it [for some other reason], you just have to accept that and move on. You aren't owed any "proof". The question is declined for the reason given, and even if you don't believe it, you just have to move on to something else or boycott me altogether.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The onus is on the person asking the question to prove that the question hasn't been asked before (which is impossible to prove) and not on the person dodging the question (which is possible for them to prove if they are telling the truth)?

The onus is on the person asking the question [you in this case] to move on to a different one - or just stop the conversation altogether - if the person being asked [me] declines to answer it. Neither side [neither you nor me] has to "prove" anything to the other.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you ask me a question and I say I have already answered it in the past and I am not interested in answering it again, I don't have to provide any evidence that I have done so, and even if you think that I declined to answer the question because I didn't want to answer it [for some other reason], you just have to accept that and move on. You aren't owed any ...[text shortened]... en if you don't believe it, you just have to move on to something else or boycott me altogether.

So you would be perfectly happy if people dodge your questions as long as they says it's too gimmicky?

Originally posted by @fmf
The onus is on the person asking the question [you in this case] to move on to a different one - or just stop the conversation altogether - if the person being asked [me] declines to answer it. Neither side [neither you nor me] has to "prove" anything to the other.

So why do you keep on telling people their dodge is noted?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you would be perfectly happy if people dodge your questions as long as they says it's too gimmicky?

People dodge my questions all the time. People accuse me of being underhand - or something along those lines - all the time. I can't remember anyone actually using the word "gimmicky" to refer to me, but that's what some people are thinking I am up to, I have no doubt. People dodge questions. People decline to answer questions. People don't know the answers to questions. People object to questions. People answer questions truthfully. People answer questions untruthfully. It's all going on.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So why do you keep on telling people their dodge is noted?

Because it is noted ~ most notably when they ask an evasive counter-question instead of answering the question.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your card is well and truly marked. According to your logic you can dodge any question you want and label it gimmicky.

Do you think your card was truly marked when you deliberately mislead people with your second account?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
According to your logic you can dodge any question you want and label it gimmicky.

Anyone can behave however they want - dodge, lie, troll, stalk, you name it - on a message board. There is nothing to stop them unless they overstep the TOS.

I have answered literally hundreds and hundreds of your questions over the last two years. Whenever I declined not to answer it was when I felt you were trolling me by pointedly ignoring things I had said in the past and asking the questions again anyway. And I explained this to you every single time I declined.

Remember your first posts as dj2becker addressed to me? you were deliberately trolling me (you apologized for it the other day) by asking me the same things as when you were "Fetchmyjunk" that I had already answered and I had asked you to desist asking them over and over again. In fact I had stopped talking to "Fetchmyjunk" for that reason.

THAT kind of trolling. That's what I am on about. To describe me not playing along with your ignore-repeat-ignore-repeat-ignore-repeat routine as "dodging" as incorrect.