I only mentioned "Dismissives" in relation to the possible categorization
Not at all; you're simply making it up.
you mentioned it because you like the characterization ... don;t like it ... just wanted to waste bandwidth
I didn't even touch on the subject. I have not even looked into the categorizations yet.
please i am making a conclusion based on your posts ... you want to relabel dismissive as category X kewl do you like that characterization now
"Please", nothing. You're telling lies about me.
I find nothing inherently
wrong, generally, in giving a label "dismissive" to one category, about a belief or set of beliefs held. However, it may not be that great a name, in conveying the "spectrum" aspect, of attitudes found. That would be my first check of the categorizations - how they flow semantically, from one side of the gauge, to the other extreme.
I may find some technical problem or semantics difficulty later, wrt the names, or the categories, but as I say, I have not actually gone through it wrt that angle, yet.
I would appreciate it if you would stop telling untruths about me. I will appreciate it when you begin to properly quote what you are making claims about. Noted that what you quoted, you took out of context and twisted to look quite different from what actually was transpiring.
As can be seen, I was talking to logtroll about his off-topic remarks about me. I had neither relished nor complained about the categorization ( "Dismissive") that he offered; I joked about his typo, only. That you can quote me using the word once, does not offer any evidence of
what you claim. It's dishonest, to present it as if it did offer evidence of what you are claiming.
Thank you in advance for curtailing your dishonest behaviour.
