[Bev]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Eristic, from the ancient Greek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife, often refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

Well, the definition of reasonable goal is subjective, isn't it?

I am trying to elicit from Mr Pauly (and now you) exactly what the evidence is for Mr Steele being insane, and getting nowhere fast.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic -- most easily available source on Internet)

That you use a different yet still correct definition of the same word to me is noted.

The pretense that there was no available clarification of what eristic connotes is itself a piece of eristic. It's argument for the sake of arguing rather than a sincere attempt to get at the truth. It's a form of deliberately annoying behavior. That's what I see this Bev person doing, very clearly. I already demonstrated it yesterday.

Ah, I see, so when you make a fool of yourself by using a word with more than one definition and then insulting me because you did not understand the context in which I replied to it translates to "deliberately annoying behaviour", does it?

I am grieved, nay, mortally wounded, in fact, that you find my asking you and Mr Pauly to back up your claims "deliberately annoying behaviour", but I'll get over it, I'm sure.

Now, do we have any evidence for your "invented" insanity or not?