Re: pearl's list update

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.

That wasn't innocuous, Bob. You were trying to make a point back in June 
and that was your evidence for it.

> > > > ...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

Show me where my remarks have been slanderous? Your pal Dreck pasted 
that one. I wrote that in response to some little putz (piddock) who 
wrote: "Although this may not bother them, since I am sure DrDoody and 
UsualSuspect have sex with children, too."

I also hope you'll compare what Dreck pasted to his unsolicited and 
slanderous statements about child molestation in my family.

<snip of other statements taken out of context>

> > > 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. 

You have the opportunity now. You haven't addresses the issues in any 
meaningful way.

> But I simply don't have the time.  

You had enough time to pull my quotes which others conveniently removed 
all relevant context.

> As a result, I will sometimes interject
> comments and pick up on sub-arguments.  

That's ALL you do, Bob.

> Sorry but's all
> my schedule currently permits.  You will find that back in the
> early 1990s, I posted extensively and more substantively.

I don't care what you were doing in the early 90s. I'm here now.

> 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.  

You have, and you did back in June during your "Harvey" moment.

> But he has, very often.

*That*'s between you and him. *This* is between you and me.

> > > 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.

No, you attacked the messenger.

> > > > > > 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, 

I have no respect for her.

> even though you may disagree vehemently with her views.

I do.

> BTW what's the purpose of the list? 

It serves as a reminder of her integrity and perspective on issues.

> To make a personal attack on another.

What part of it constitutes an attack? She vigorously defended her 
"hollow earth" beliefs, and used the globe patent to do so.

> Why not stick to issues?  

I do, jerk.