"Gaslighted"...? (was Re: Most salient overlooked facts)
- Dan Sullivan wrote:
>On 25 Oct 2008 at 15:34, Harry Pollard wrote:???????? Am I totally insane, or is the above paragraph about taxing selling price rather than rent, which Mason wrote (and which I did not quote or mention in my response to Harry's message #5099 because I was not taking issue with it) and which Harry now claims to be the one he agreed with, _entirely_different_ from the comment Harry actually _did_ agree with in that message, and which I subsequently questioned and which he then attributed to Mason:
>> Harry Pollard wrote:
>> >This is the paragraph from Mason that I "agreed" to:
>> >"As we near Utopia Iâd be glad to consider taxing rent instead of
>> >selling price, but in our lifetimes selling price is better, as we
>> >segue from here towards there. By all means let us dream great dreams,
>> >but during our waking hours also get our hands dirty with life as it
>This is partly (but not entirely) what I had in mind when I wrote of
>Roy's "gratuitously absurd and consistently uncharitable
>misconstruing of what the other person had said."
"(The subject is location value in cities, not farm fertility and suchlike.)
>You noted that heI deleted it because I had nothing whatever to say about it. I _did_not_ complain that there was no such paragraph. That is a fabrication on Harry's part. I _asked_ Harry _who_ had posted the _entirely_different_ parenthetical comment he claimed to be agreeing with:
>had deleted this paragraph and then complained that there was no such
"(The subject is location value in cities, not farm fertility and suchlike.)"
Or am I insane, and that comment is actually semantically equivalent to Mason's paragraph about taxing selling price rather than rent, above?
-- Roy Langston
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at