On Nov 1, 11:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Our Phil's skill in logic is comparable to his knowledge of such
languages as Andean and Swabian. Here, his inference is completely
baseless. I suppose if I said "I was invited to join Bill at the ball
game yesterday, but couldn't go. Too bad -- Schilling pitched a
no-hitter," then our Phil would conclude that the _only_ reason I
attend baseball games is to see no-hitters.

ROFL! He supposes IF he said ))
What about what he ACTUALLY said?

Along with his many other shortcomings, our Phil seems unable to
understand analogies, or even the concept of analogy.

At the bottom of the message Blair acts for 'specific facts' and I answer if
Kingston's own words would do.
Kingston now decribes his own words as 'malevolent fantasies'.

Even more serious than his inability to grasp analogies, is Phil's
tendency to misunderstand, or even distort, what others write. Had he
read properly, he would understand that "malevolent fantasies" refers
not to my words, but to the absurd interpretation he insists on giving
them. These interpretations are not "specific facts," they are
malignant distortions. But malignant distortion is Phil's modus
operandi.