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

Yes, the point was that not every one agreed that smoking
was harmful.  It was a minor part of a discussion.  Not really
a big deal.  A minor point, but one made in sincerity.


> >>>>...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.

Remarks like that are uncalled, even when your hero, Jon, makes
them.  Agreed?


> <snip of other statements taken out of context>

Nevertheless, they were good advice for virtually any 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.

I think I have a little, but I'm hitting the road again shortly and
don't expect to return until late next week.


> > But I simply don't have the time.
>
> You had enough time to pull my quotes which others conveniently removed
> all relevant context.

It took about 10 seconds.


> > As a result, I will sometimes interject
> > comments and pick up on sub-arguments.
>
> That's ALL you do, Bob.

I don't think so, but if you want to believe that, fine.


> > 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.

Well, if you're really that eager for what I think, the record is
there.  My views really haven't changed much.


> > 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.

You were the one to bring up my alleged lashing out at him.


> >>>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.

I did some of both.  That you chose to focus on the messenger
comments should help explain to you why ARs attacked here
often find it hard to stick to issues.


> >>>>>>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.

Doesn't matter.  You can still disagree in a respectful manner.
It's what you once seem to favor.


> > 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.

What does integrity have to do with it, if she believes
everything she posts?


> > 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.

That's *one* item on the list.


> > Why not stick to issues?
>
> I do, jerk.

Not with that inane list, which she's on record as
disputing, you haven't.