Pamela wrote:

On 08:58 5 Jun 2020, Kelly said:

you end this post of yours by saying that you "have to draw the line" as
we "are going round in circles" and you are quite right, I feel the same
way. This post of mine is not intended as a "I want the last word", but
felt I couldn't go without making just a few more points.

[...]

So, by all means draw the line at reminding me anymore of your
speculatory circles.

This discussion has been going round in circles. I have made my points
and there's no merit in reminding you of them in repeated replies to your
"whataboutery" and zigzag logic.

It's not possible to make progress when you freely reverse the direction
of causality, saying it doesn't matter. Genuine causality is a central
part of understanding cause and effect of mental illness amongst those
with extensive tattoos. Reversing causality reverses the argument.

Tattoos do not cause mental illness and no one has ever said so, but it
appears you still want to discuss your misunderstanding about that.

I can not imagine how you get the idea I still want to discuss a
misunderstanding that I don't even believe I have. And, please, give
me some credit - do you really think I believe tattoos cause mental
illness? Is anybody that stupid? When talking about the direction of
causality not mattering, I meant it was the way you were going on
about it in a particular instance that didn't matter.

Read one of the links I have provided or one which comes up in a search of
your own and see if that helps.

Yes, well, I would if I felt I needed help. But I have absolutely no
problem in accepting people with extensive tattos are more likely to
have mental health issues than the average person - in fact, I have
seen people with tattoos that made me wonder about their mental
health. Other than that, I don't unduly worry about people and their
tattoos - some I like, some I don't.

I have no idea why your logic is so scrambled.

I think that's a 'begging the question' thing here, isn't it? As in:

"Begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an
argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of
supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that
requires that the desired conclusion be true."

Assuming you don't have psychosis...

Well, psychosis would mean that I had a severe mental disorder in
which my thoughts and emotions where so impaired I had lost contact
with external reality.

...I've suggested intoxication while posting which is common...

So, what you have suggested, in effect, is either I could be a
psychotic or an alcoholic. Your line of reasoning, however, fails by
limiting my options to two when there are truthfully plenty more
options to choose from. Your reasoning failure is, I believe, also
known as the 'black-and-white' fallacy. Also, I can't help but
notice, the two options you have given me are themselves nothing
more than 'ad hominem' fallacies.

It's quite amusing, isn't it, you using all these reasoning fallacies
to attack my logic? Talk about an irony overload! You know, I can
not believe someone as skilled in 'working' usenet as you are could be
employing all these questionable tactics accidentally, but that would
mean you were doing it all knowingly and deliberately, wouldn't it?

I suppose different individuals have differing objectives for posting
on usenet and therefore set about how they go about things
accordingly. I further suppose it's a good idea for me to appreciate
that, and the sooner the better - it may not always be straightforward
to get thing right but that just adds to the fun and fascination.

You must work within your own understanding as I'm unable
advise you further.

Okay, then, guess I'll have to continue struggling along as best I'm
able. But thanks for your help in getting me this far - my notes, by
the way, are progressing well.