Bob Seidensticker: I’m not sure what you mean by “tactics.” Maybe you mean “playing games” or “being argumentative”? I’m not sure. But I infer from your email that “I disapprove of the use of ‘tactics’” means “I don’t like it when people push back against my charges.” Feel free to disagree. And to clarify what “tactics” you disapprove of.
You infer? There is no reason to infer anything. I mean what I say, so when I say tactics, I mean tactics. In this case; the disingenuous rhetorical tricks and ploys you use—absence of sincerity and sound reasoning—to vilify me and to squirm out of explaining yourself. The manipulative contrivances, or tactics, I have seen you demonstrate include the garden variety of logical fallacies. For example, your phony inference with the insinuation of “charges”, above, looks like innuendo or begging the question. I have numerous records of you using variations of that theme. Often, switching the burden of proof appears to be your objective. However, I am not into “quibbling over definitions.” The labeling terminology is insignificant. I simply don’t like dishonesty and under-handedness.
I recognized your linguistic tactics, although I was bewildered at first because I had not seen your irrational malevolence before. But it wasn’t until later It became clear how you used them as a smokescreen to cover your much more sinister manipulative strategies. With insights from research and the clarity of hindsight, I don’t hesitate to regard you as a man without a conscience.
People say you’re arrogant. Maybe this grandiosity comes from believing your conning abilities make you smarter or more superior than other people, and that honesty, straight-forwardness, and personal responsibility are pathetic and contemptible attributes. Feel free to disagree. And to substantiate your insinuation.