[taustin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ah, I see the source of your confusion and I think I can help.

I'm not confused. I see your passive/aggressive evasions quite clearly.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I (mistakenly it seems) thought our discussion was over.

Since you never really participated in it, it never really began.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine, you then suggested I was too stupid to follow your points, at which point I posted a (fairly hilarious, IMHO) picture of Emperor Palpatine. I guess I just assumed that we'd have to agree to disagree about the issue,

And, as further evidence that you're not bothering to read what you're replying to, I will point out - again, for at least the third or fourth time in direct response to you - that we do not actually disagree. I've said several times, that I do not consider the windowshopping behavior in question to be unethical, and that I speak from 25+ years of experience in retail. You keep pretending that I've claimed otherwise, and I keep pointing out that we actually agree.

So let me explain, again, and I'll try to use small words this time:

What we disagree (that's three syllables, but you've used the word, so perhaps you can check with an adult to make sure it means what you think it means) on is not whether or not windowshopping is unethical (or immoral, as the original statement called it), but whether or not it is reasonable for anyone, ever, under any circumstances, to find it so. Your claim was that no, it's not ever, under any circumstances in any way reasonable for anyone to ever consider it unethical (I believe you used the word "bonkers", implying, in your passive/aggressive way, since you're not allowed to resort to actual namecalling, that anyone who disagrees with you must be insane). Since it was a broad, sweeping, univerally true claim, a single counterexample disproves it. I've provided a pretty common counterexample (one that doesn't particularly apply to book stores, true, but still very common in the retail world) in which, agree or not, the position is not unreasonable. You have refused to address that specific example, or even acknowlege it's been offered. You've tried to change the subject, you've argued with things I've never said (nor has anyone else), you've called me evil (in your passive/agressive, please don't ban me for namecalling) way, and now you pretend it was suppoed to be hilarious in a "I didn't mean to offend anyone" way.

In short, you have yet to actually discuss, in any way whatsoever, the point I've made.

And I predict you never, ever will.

(Further attempt to distract and change the subject with more passive/aggressive nattering about spelling snipped as irrelevant to the issue at hand - whether or not it is ever, under any circumstances, to consider windowshopping unethical.)

You may now reply about something completely different.