I am committing the terrible crime of responding to a post twice, again. If
this makes me a kook... well, then we must all be kooks since there is
nothing kooky about doing such a thing for a valid reason. I have been
wanting to illustrate this tactic of Mike's since we started this, but I
wanted him to give me a really good example since him and his fellow rabing
lunatics are so forceful in their denial of this activity. So... Welcome to
Selective Editing 101, featuring well noted NetKook Mikey "Reputability
shall by determined at my sole discretion" Davis!!!

Selective editing is the most powerful single tool in a debunker's arsenal.
It can be used to subtly, or even drasticly alter the meaning of what was
said, which is what most people think of when they here the term "selective
editing". Raving Lunatic Debunkers, such as this notorious NetKook here,
however, more commonly use selective editing as the master, Mikey, has done
for us below. His game is far more subtle, he is using selective edititing
to creat an unacceptable workload for the subject to be willing too
effectively respond.

Here is the orginal that he responded too...

Raging against debunkers

I am not "raging". I am quite calm, and providing a thought provoking and
rational example.


Are you ready for this... This is how he responded too it...

 >>Raging against debunkers
 >
 >
 > I am not "raging".

Irrational denial of reality noted.

 > I am quite calm,

He ranted.

 > and providing a thought provoking and
 > rational example.

I seriously doubt you are capable of being rational.

My god! He actually managed to turn a single sentance into half a page of
response without actually every saying anything at all. That's just a gift,
you can't learn that! Notice that, as far as the reader of his response is
concerned, the first two may not even be related, they aren't necessarily
related, you'd have to see the original to know that this was all orginally
one sentance. Much more importantly, is the workload he created for me to
effectively respond as compared to the workload it took him to create. He
took a single sentance and chopped it up into three seperate ridiculing
insults, while at the same time totally ignoring the orignal point. That
took him, probably less than 30 seconds. In order for me to effectively
respond, I have to go searching through the previous posts to find the
orignal and then point out all of the things he did that I just discussed
(such as never addressing the point and responding with three seperate
insults too a single sentance). I have to do all of this that I did,
basically, and it took about 10 minutes (too his, probabaly about 30
seconds). The really, really experienced Raving Lunatics use this tactic
constantly, it seems too be one of their primary underlying theories. It's
fast and easy to chop up anything anyone says and ridicule it, the amount of
effort that it takes the victim to straighten it back out is orders of
magnitude greater than that. They are well aware of this, and the good ones
use it as often as possible.

Although it is certainly the responsibility of those making unsubstantiated
claims to substantiate those claims, keeping that in mind, whem dealing with
Raving Lunatic Debunkers, always be mindful of this tactic. Don't allow them
to essentially assign you work. I respond in detail because it is my whole
point in being here, I would suggest an effective response under normal
circumstances would be too simply leave a "snippage note" similar to the
ones that the notorious NetKook Mikey Davis uses such as "Flushed pathetic
attempt to waste my time" or "Snipped attempted sentance chopping tactic".
Just remember, this is only a tactic on their part when the response does
not address the actual subject and consists only of short, canned phrases
(usually ridicule and insults). It can certainly be valid, and even helpful,
to chop up a sentance in this way in response. It becomes a dishonest tactic
when that response contains nothing but ridicule and insults. That makes it
something that the subject of the attack feels obligated to respond too, and
yet requires so much work in response by comparison to what it took to
create. I won't speak of anyone else, but Kooky Mikey here quite obviously
does this intentionally, and excessively, make him and excelent example.

Thanks for yet another great example, Mike. I've said it before and I'll
probably say it again, you are truely (spelled with an e, just for Pete) a
limitless well of great examples!