Sandman
In article <D281E617.658DF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Slimer
If Muhammad Al-Snit Prescott Terrorist Guy had morals and values, he wouldn't submit to something as pathetic as anxiety and would be determined to work hard in and out of the house to feed and clothe his family. He'd be dedicated to his work rather than to Usenet.

Instead, we have mush who is scared of facing the world because of "anxiety" but cures himself by making everyone else on the Internet miserable with his idiotic dedication to pointless debates.

Snit
Wow! Again you attack a your fantasies of a person and not any ideas the person has. Shows your lack of confidence. But let us look at your view of anxiety: many of our service members come back with PTSD - an "anxiety issue". This has a huge impact on their lives... and your response to anxiety disorders is to say people should just get over it.

Sandman
Only, he didn't actually tell you to "get over it".

Snit
He specifically said people should not "submit" to anxiety from health issues.

Sandman
Actually he didn't. What he actually said is still quoted above.

He just said that he dislikes that your personal health issues make you post repeatedly on usenet over pointless debates.

Snit
My health issues have nothing to do with my posts and I rarely speak of them except in response to others brining them up, and even then I avoid details.

Sandman
He apparently feels differently.

And it's to your credit, really. He sees your behavior here on USENET as a result of something you cannot control, rather than being a deliberate choice. He just wishes you would work harder not to let other suffer from it as well.

Snit
Whatever health issues I have are not relevant. This is a general discussion of anxiety disorders - not about me! Remember, I am not that interesting.

Sandman
I think you're very interesting, but that's beside the point.

Something I'm sure you would agree with - when was the last time you had a "debate" on usenet that had a point? I mean, a debate that had a goal you felt was achieved successfully? Aren't you always found in threads disagreeing with pretty much everyone?

Snit
What debates? In CSMA and COLA there is just trolling and me responding.

Sandman
So what is the supposed "point", then? If we suspend disbelief for a second and play with the idea that there is "trolling and you responding", why do you respond? What is the actual point and how many times have you achieved this point?

As you are aware, you are always in threads where people disagree with you.

What is it with those threads that keep you posting to them - what is the goal with your participation in them?

When was the last time anyone (other than a sock puppet of yours) said "Thanks" to something you said? And even if you can find such a post, how much of the actual responses are those percentage-wise?

Snit
And then you repeat the "everyone is Snit" gag. Yawn.

Sandman
No answer for the question, then? Curious.

I'm sure you feel that you're often trying to make a point, but the real question is, *are* you making the point? I.e. even if you feel you have a good and solid view on a given subject, do you ever find that you "win" the argument and the opposing person adopts your viewpoint?

Food for thought.

Snit
If you think I have failed to back a point then show it...

Sandman
That's not the question though.

Whether or not you feel you have "backed" a point is irrelevant, the question is whether or not you actually successfully *made* that point. I.e. you found yourself showing your point in a clear manner and people you are responding to accept it as a valid point. That should be the end goal, should it not? If you endlessly make what you yourself consider to be "valid points" yet find yourself surrounded by people that disagree with that, why would you still be around? If no one ever agrees with you, why continue stating these supposed "valid points"? What is the purpose?