jstein@panix.com (Judy Stein):

The "sellout" would have been a decision he made in his
mind, then went on to implement in his actions.

And there I was, thinking you had already vacuumed as much
meaning as possilbe from the term. Well, you've proved me
wrong. Now one can sell out not only without any selling -- no
need to trade one's principles -- but even w/out taking any
action of any kind outside the privacy of one's own mind. Kind
of amazing, in a pointless way.

The actions come
after the decision. So whether his selling out could be seen as
complementary depends on whether you think his actions after making
the decision to sell out were praiseworthy.

Not according to you. Don't you notice what you say? You
just got through insisting this hypothetical sellout "would
have been a decision he made in his mind." Your words. So any
opinion about it would be an opinion on that decision, to
judge by you said above. Of course, one might hold the opinion
that what you said isn't worth judging by.

I didn't say one way or another whether I thought his actions were
praiseworthy.

Uh-huh. And I didn't say you said you thought his actions
were praiseworthy.

*You* did that.

Damn right I did.

Moggin:

... You used the
expression "sell out" in a very weak sense which didn't require
any trade of principles for reward -- a basic change in
outlook was enough to fit the bill. Now, the story told in the
NT (chapter and verse on request) says Paul changed in a
pretty big way: he stopped persecuting Christians, for example
by getting them thrown in jail. So while you used a term
with an extremely negative rhetorical charge, you were actually
making a point flattering to the guy.

Judy:

In your opinion, not necessarily in mine. In a subsequent post
I noted that his ceasing to persecute Christians could well be
seen as praiseworthy in the short term, but in the long term the
consquences of his conversion and ascendancy to leadership in the
Christian movement as the "Apostle to the Gentiles," which had
the result of dissociating Christianity from Judaism, could be
perceived as making the suffering of Christians under Paul seem
vastly preferable.

If you prefer to stone and jail people for their religious
beliefs.

Moggin:

I know you're bullshitting again. I didn't claim that you
personally wanted to compliment him.

Judy:

You're claiming I used it in a way that could *only* be
complimentary to Paul (unless you'd like to amend that now).

You're still bullshitting. That "_only_" is your addition.

Moggin:

"Sell out" is a derogatory term -- but you
sufficiently emptied its meaning to turn it into the very
opposite. So the same could be true for any of the expressions
you use. For instance, when you claim you cornered Uncle
Tantra, you might be saying that you thoroughly lost the debate.

Judy [re Paul]:

Only if you think his actions after having made the sellout
decision were commendable.

No, not only then. Even if you simply think it was a good
decision.

Moggin:

And if you had paid attention, then you would have noticed
I also didn't define the word checkmate.

Judy:

You said:

Like my arbitrary definition of "checkmake" to mean game's
over in chess.

You corrected the typo in your next post, so I assume that's
not why you're denying you said what I said you said.

Huh? Of course that's what I said. "Chechmake" was -- as
you saw -- just a typo for "checkmate." I fixed it on the
next go-round. Didn't bother saying anything, since it was too
trivial.

You've similarly defined ...

I can't have "similarly defined," since I didn't define in
the first place.

Moggin:

You just snipped what I restored -- I'll put it back again.

Judy:

Nah

Well, yeah: you did remove what I had restored. And like
I said, I put it back.

I'm snipping it again

O.k. I'll put it back again.

[restoring text]

Here's what you actually -- and falsely -- wrote: "Moggin
knew to snip my earlier iteration of this point from his
challenge." And here's the point that you actually referred to:
"Obviously _he_ [Uncle Tantra] thought my argument had put
him in a corner." But the truth is I included that point in my
reply. You said:

Oh, and I don't believe I've ever declared
myself the "winner" of a debate. Oddly enough,
though, Barry has explicitly given me permission
to do so several times in debates with him when
he's found himself cornered.

I quoted you and answered that it sounded as tho Barry had
an intellectual conscience -- something you seem to be
missing. Alternatively, you may have one that you store in the
attic inside a locked black trunk.

http://tinyurl.com/q2nz.
news:moggin-7E1BDE.00395706102003@netnews.attbi.com

What's more, I quoted your point again when you made it in
a slightly different way. You wrote:

Actually I said when Barry has "found himself
cornered." That's from his perspective.

Your words as I quoted them, where you made the point that
you wrongly claim I erased.

Judy:

"This point" obviously refers to "he gives up and tells me I can call
myself the winner," since that's what Pansy (whom I was addressing)
had forgotten to delete. That's the point whose earlier iteration
you had snipped.

Moggin:

A point you falsely claimed that I disputed -- in fact you
repeated the same falsehood often enough you got me to
wondering if you were wrong about Uncle Tantra, even though I'd
been taking your word.

Judy:

No, I didn't claim you disputed it, I claimed you *snipped* it.

Another of your many falsehoods. You absurdly claimed you
had "invalidated Kater's contention _Barry_ didn't think he
was cornered" in the material you accused me of deleting. Only
two little problems.

One: I _hadn't_ been contending that Barry didn't feel he
was cornered. Just the opposite: I took your word he did
think so, although lately it's beginning to seem as tho you may
have misrepresented him.

Two: the stuff I quoted -- and you keep removing -- shows
clearly that Barry _did_ think you had won, the way you
described him (whether or not you were being truthful), despite
your claim to the contrary.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn