[babeKnuth]

literal about what? your explanation was poorly phrased, how was i to interpolate what you really meant if you didn't clarify it fully? my parsing of your sentence is valid, as is yours.

and i didn't say or intend to imply there was any contradiction. just pointing out that you changed your "he's a scumbag because..." def'n. moving goalposts (no matter how small) in a conversation typically isn't cool.

"Assange is a real scumbag for risking people's lives."

"I think that Assange is a scumbag because he's a hypocrite."

[dannyb]

Let's see: false dichotomy - check. Overly argumentative - check. Strawman argument - check. Yup, I'm on the internet...

[babeKnuth]

we were on the internet before you had any of your "am i on the internet?" criteria checked :)

just trying to have a conversation, not really interested in arguing (usually futile, especially on the web/forums/etc.). if i'm missing something i didn't see/understand, i'm always looking to find the error in my ways (it happens often, hence i've learned to always be eager in engaging conversation, whether on the streetcorners or the webs...).

what were the strawmen or false dichotomies?

i think all my points and questions were valid. i'm not sure if you're being disingenuous and dismissive, or just afraid to concede that your rhetoric is both unconvincing and (probably) wrong, or a combination of the two.