I think he's feeling attacked for some opinions he stated that you aren't attacking, and not looking *specifically* at the particular statement/opinion that you are being critical of as a non-sequiter.
HMMMMM...after re-reading the first thread, where this started, I think I see where the 1st disconnect took place.
Neither Mono, nor Ceoli specifically defined and the definition agreed to on how they were each using the term "wired", whether biological, environmental, or a combination of both. Social conditioning by itself *could* result in being *wired* a particular way. Could be this is primarily a problem of *assumed* definitions on both sides. And while I understand that even if the terms were agreed to, it wouldn't necessarily no longer be a non sequitor in general terms, it's possible that it might not be a non-sequitor at all in terms of Mono specifically. Or is that a literal impossibility? You logicians feel free to educate me on this one. ;-)
Last edited by windmarkbob; 11-29-2009 at 05:15 AM.