Re: pearl's list update

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> farrell77 wrote:
> >>>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> >>>something original?  Or better yet, reject name-calling
> >>>altogether?  At least you could appear to be your own
> >>>person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
> >>
> >>I think my posts show I'm my own man. ...
> >
> > We disagree at this point, but I'm open to changing my opinion.
>
> I doubt your sincerity. That's not a baseless swipe, either. I remember
> your "aged smoking friend" you met at a high school reunion and how you
> tried to use "him" to make cheap points.

I had a few rare spare minutes and was just looking for some
conversation that day.  There was no cheap point.  It was valid.

Sheesh!  It's pretty bad when a forum has become so polarized
that even relatively innocuous topics become so controversial.


> >>...I'll make a deal with you: I'll
> >>reject name-calling when you fight your own battles rather than trying
> >>to stick up for others OR simply interjecting threads with insults and
> >>your own name-calling.
> >
> > Deal on the name-calling and I'll do my best to live up to it, as
> > far as discussions with you are concerned.  Will you consider
> > applying this to others too?
>
> You want me to refrain from calling others names?

Yes.  Why not follow your own advice?

--------------- insertions ----------------

"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03

"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
..
.. the issue at hand isn't me. ..  Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03

"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03

"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03

------------- end of insertions ----------------------


> > That said, I have to dispute your claim that I'm not fighting my own
> > battles (what a strange choice of words!).  This is an open, public
forum
> > where any "battle" belongs to anyone who chooses to participate.
>
> Agreed, but your MO is to enter in without discussing the merits on the
> table. Instead, you merely lash out at others (usually Jonathan). And as
> noted in a another response to you, you rarely support your contentions.
> Unless you make up aged chain-smokers.

1. I would love to engage in thoughtful lengthy discussions
about how humans do and should treat animals.  But I simply
don't have the time.  As a result, I will sometimes interject
comments and pick up on sub-arguments.  Sorry but's all
my schedule currently permits.  You will find that back in the
early 1990s, I posted extensively and more substantively.

2. Jon is the one who has lied repeatedly about me.  He's also
called me and many others names.  He's done this to a far
greater extent than anyone else who's ever posted in this
forum (TPA).  No one comes close.  All this is undeniable.
So when I lash out at him, ... well it's something he's earned.
AFAIK I have never initiated it.  But he has, very often.


> > As it turns out, the libertarian / AR discussion is one that holds
> > particular interest to me.
>
> Then you should address the messages rather than the messengers.

I did address the messages.


> >>>>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list
is
> >>>>56.25% correct.
> >>>
> >>>If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?
> >>
> >>No, SHE has agreed it's mostly correct. *I* submit it's fully accurate.
> >
> > I doubt it,
>
> Yes, you like to announce that you doubt stuff without explaining why.
>
> > but we'll see when you post your evidence.
>
> Will you be man enough to apologize for being a dick about it?

I will, IF you can convincingly support all the items on your list and you
agree to treat her respectfully, even though you may disagree
vehemently with her views.

BTW what's the purpose of the list?  To make a personal attack on
another.  Why not stick to issues?  Like your own advice above
calls for.