slippery like a snake

Had an interesting exchange I want to examine a little.

Hey JS, so you're still around, I see.
Posted: 13 February 2016 11:54 PM JSmith the ball is in your court. :smirk:
Or did we manage to fill up your attention span allotment?
Good bye to you citizen's challenge. I pay attention to those who are worthy of the topic.

At that link you’ll see that I responded to JD’s set of questions in a good faith manner.
Mind you JD is the one that strutted onto the stage and tossed down these questions of his.
I spent time to respond in a rational, coherent manner.
How good my information is, is another question.
What I believe can’t be denied is I approached JD’s question in a serious rational manner,
that directly address his questions and now exposed my arguments and evidence to his cross examination.
Instead it’s that old stunt that I’ve heard sooo often.
“NO, you’re beneath me.
My time is too precious to defend my big mouth, so I dismiss you.”
I always though that somewhere under one’s ideology and personal dogmas, there’s a shred of inner objective observer,
a conscious if you will. But no.
Instead they have their self-certain arrogance and a deep fear of substantive constructive confrontation.

What is there to examine? The rational argument has to stand on its own. The reaction to it by any one person tells you little. The language used is difficult to deal with because, in this forum, you can’t sort out if he is actually “above” you. There is no authority to determine that.
If I were trying to explain how I could go beyond the speed of light to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he would at some point have every right to say he no longer had time for me. If I was trying to explain to Mitch McConnell that he had no Constitutional basis for denying a SCOTUS nomination based simply on the election cycle, he might use that same language, and there wouldn’t be much I could do about it. People on forums know the language.

Perhaps I should have written,
evasive like a fraud.