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.
“What you have done is very damaging. I demand an explanation. Your attempts to shift the responsibility over to me and to cop out are clear to everyone.”
“Sure, call it a cop out if that’ll end this conversation.”
“Let’s call it something else then. Call it whatever you want. I will still insist on some answers.”
The offender evades responsibility for his malicious behavior by diverting attention over to his victim’s description of it.
They said: You’ve been disputed but yet you keep silent?
I said: Indeed, a response will only be a key to the doors of evil.
What nasty and devious manipulations you engage in. Back when you were telling people that I had “forced” you to despise me, you didn’t mention the fact that you were the aggressor. I had been nothing but kind and generous towards you when you started sending provocations. Did I “force” you to do that? In the exchange that followed, your true character, or lack thereof, manifested itself. I responded to your provocations by questioning the position you had taken as judge; uninvited and obviously biased in a situation you knew nothing about. You justified your hostility by pointing to my email responses, claiming that they were the source of incriminating evidence against me. Naturally, your reference was vague and unspecific.
Vagueness is one of the basic tactics that dishonest and evil-minded people use to lure others into believing what they want them to believe.
And then, by using another ugly manipulation tactic, you can blame your vagueness and your lack of evidence on me. Requesting permission to extract and publicize snippets from my emails gives the impression that you really are being truthful, that you really do have evidence, and that you really do want to substantiate your claims and justify your disrespect, callous lack of empathy, and ill treatment of me. Most definitely, I stand behind my every word and I have no problem admitting to error when I am shown to be wrong. However, knowing how easy it is for a skilled manipulator without a conscience to use the words of his opponent to misrepresent what has been said to his own benefit and to his target’s detriment, it would be foolish to give consent to your scheme. With approval to quote from my emails, you would take words out of context and distort their meaning in order to shift blame, incriminate me, and make yourself look like the one being abused. An evil-minded manipulator will implicate his victim as having something to hide by pointing to the fact that he has been denied permission to show his ‘evidence’. Giving permission or denying it; he will make her look bad either way. For any manipulator, this is a win–win situation he’s most familiar with. He’s got his opponent under his thumb.