You continue to make poor arguments. Let's take a few and go down the list:
***Time and maturity will judge whether you are
slandering me as not having argued with your ideas, but instead personally "attacked" you.***
By trying to establish attention to Harv you have avoided the arguments of Harv. Argumentum ad hominem. I'm not interested in sharing personal information, but I was willing to share my favorite color (you should feel honored).
***The suggestion that your warmth is of another kind is supportable in continued dialogue, which is about the only topic I have left with you after this note, until you clear up the impression you have left with me, to my satisfaction.***
More argumentum ad hominem. Who the heck cares how you feel about my warm regards. I put it there because I do wish people my warmest regards. If it bothers you, then don't enter into any dialogue with me and it'll never be said to you.
***My critique of your public statements is a logical, on-topic review.***
Hardly. You accused me of allowing name calling when in fact I was addressing another issue altogether (e.g., whether words like evil can be used to identify certain actions). You missed the argument, but as you are accustomed, you tried to make this an argumentum ad hominem argument by saying that I approve of widespread slandering of individuals. You were completely off the mark.
***I have no prejudice toward you. We have established that I know nothing about your resume, and you declined to provide any upon request, and so I guessed at your background, honestly, with no malice nor any motive but to give you honest feedback.***
I didn't take any offense. However, it was obvious to me that you were not interested in content of the discussion at that point.
***It is not necessary to convince a fair onlooker that you are not being attacked.
I have caused you no bodily injury, and did not advocate for any penalty for your behavior (in fact, rather argued against it.***
Most of your comments are about Harv. Very few comments about the content of an argument. That leads only to poor discussions.
***I responded point by point and noted your replies, searching for merit and consistency with hope of finding it.***
Only each of your points were:
1) "Now, thanks to Harv, his friends can call anyone 'evil' as long as they know what they mean. -- that's what you've been saying, Harv."
Clearly I never said that, nor was trying to justify.
2) "And Harv, would you please describe your experience or any claim you have to stature
as a logical communicator?"
Irrelevant as regarding my points to Mario.
3) "You imply these actions are accomplished by the words themselves. In your statement, no human is responsible; in that statement, no human has authority, and no human lacks authority to make up new words or meanings for themselves without even explaining to others their reasoning. It's like separating from society and forming a new language without printing a dictionary."
I never implied that words take on meaning by themselves. You simply opened up your hand and grabbed this out of the air around you.
4) "There is no basic difference between the statement you made and the statement you denied making...I don't think I am distorting your meaning."
As I responded, there is a great deal of difference.
5) "you agree that words can't 'standardize definitions' do you agree that words can't 'acquire definitions?'"
I never said that words acquire definitions by themselves. Again more air grabbing by you.
6) "In objecting to your proposition(s) that 'Words acquire meaning, but words do not standardize definitions' I was not being convoluted. My stated objections to those propositions were, at first, fairly clear and concise, I thought, but you kept stirring the pot. Your usual maneuver is to correct me a few posts later by representing the view I had expressed earlier as your view now, which you then imply I do not hold."
Where were you clear, where were you concise? You simply misconstrued my discussion with Mario (and I have no idea how I don't mind re-clarifying with those who kindly ask without making insinuations).
***I am explaining this one last time, in case you truly were only in need of a kindly, truthful explanation of an unpleasant problem of integrity that seems clear to me after careful review.
If you were the host owner, it would not change my considered opinion. Only the quality of your correspondence has entered consideration.***
Mike, forget about the names on the posts and just concentrate on the content. I find it awkward to forget that you post under a few names, but since you seem to continue in such a confusing manner I have seen it more pragmatic at this juncture just to accept this little quirk about yourself. I suggest that if I am able to forget about such odd behavior coming from one individual that you too can concentrate on the content. Rather than making new insinuations about what someone is saying, I suggest that you clarify whether they are really saying that. This will get you far.
Warm regards, Harv