Received: from deimos.frii.com (deimos.frii.com [208.146.240.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id FAA16827 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:01:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from frii.com (ftc-0301.dialup.frii.com [216.17.134.97]) by deimos.frii.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA11847 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:01:01 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <364C2004.B89B670A@frii.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:03:16 -0700 From: Jim Talboy X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Let's continue to keep the "debate" public folks. References: <3647A42A.A4B79F3C@jps.net> <364823A9.18782344@frii.com> <364BC6BA.FFF22735@jps.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------89EEC5A58FAC5AFFA6240245" --------------89EEC5A58FAC5AFFA6240245 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No Ted, we'll have to keep the "debate" public. You and Mr. Glaze seem to be frustrated with your reception from the list. I resent that your "front" has not read our replies or simply chosen to ignore our complaints. It seems much of it has gone right over your heads, as if we haven't been clear enough. The "front" has made "reviews" of the list's responses, by reworking our conversations out of context and redistributing them, to Sierra and Audubon at least, as if PPN members are not reasonable. Unfortunately, those lists in question, are not receptive to expedient, systematic revisionism either. They understand your divisive methods well. You were not able to impress them, except in very negative terms because of the shrillness, juvenile pettiness, and abuse you've heaped on those list owners. Now, to complain we too are unreasonable and simply labeling our responses as "illogic," without much analysis, smacks of more primary school debate. PPN participants now has been self righteously condemned as unreasonable. PPN is a fundamentally different group and I'll assume its competencies are not interested in being "strung along" to provide further remedial services for you. We know who the Front is, and will continue to keep the "debate" public, because frankly I've really not got time to "play in the sand box," and assume no other list participant is interested in providing petty fodder for offline "debate" either. These are two of Mr. Toals postings regarding the whys and wherefores of overpopulation, as an example of really wild, hidden MOTIVES. ETs, Secrecy, and Highly Adv Re: ET intentions Good or Ev These are Mr. Glaze's, what I consider grandiose, public postings regarding overpopulation and environmentalism. One of the more self important postings is a link to a website that discusses "logic" and "debate." Apparently it is fine to employ these fallacies in "debate," as long as no one catches on. This is called "relative morality" and it works in primary school at least, but not on an international list server. I'm particularly interested in the quote and the end of his postings on our list, that implies if "we" don't understand the problem, as framed by the Front, then we will not understand the "severity of the solution." Mr. Glaze has chosen to relabel our clear objections as "illogic," and dismisses us as therefore "unreasonable." Search Results --------------89EEC5A58FAC5AFFA6240245 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No Ted, we'll have to keep the "debate" public.  You and Mr. Glaze seem to be frustrated with your reception from the list.  I resent that your "front" has not read our replies or simply chosen to ignore our complaints.  It seems much of it has gone right over your heads, as if we haven't been clear enough.  The "front" has  made "reviews" of the list's responses, by reworking our conversations out of context and redistributing them, to Sierra and Audubon at least, as if PPN members are not reasonable.  Unfortunately, those lists in question, are not receptive to expedient, systematic revisionism either.  They understand your divisive methods well.   You were not able to impress them, except in very negative terms because of the shrillness, juvenile pettiness, and abuse you've heaped on those list owners.  Now, to complain we too are unreasonable and simply labeling our responses as "illogic," without much analysis, smacks of more primary school debate.  PPN participants now has been self righteously condemned as unreasonable.  PPN is a fundamentally different group and I'll assume its competencies are not interested in being "strung along" to provide further  remedial services for you.  We know who the Front is, and will continue to keep the "debate" public, because frankly I've really not got time to "play in the sand box," and assume no other list participant is interested in providing petty fodder for offline "debate" either.

These are two of Mr. Toals postings regarding the whys and wherefores of overpopulation, as an example of really wild, hidden MOTIVES.

 ETs, Secrecy, and Highly Adv
 Re: ET intentions Good or Ev

These are Mr. Glaze's, what I consider grandiose, public postings regarding overpopulation and environmentalism.  One of the more self important postings is a link to a website that discusses "logic" and "debate."  Apparently it is fine to employ these fallacies in "debate," as long as no one catches on.  This is called "relative morality" and it works in primary school at least, but not on an international list server.  I'm particularly interested in the quote and the end of his postings on our list, that implies if "we" don't understand the problem, as framed by the Front, then we will not understand the "severity of the solution."  Mr. Glaze has chosen to relabel our clear objections as "illogic," and dismisses us as therefore "unreasonable."
 
 Search Results
 
 
  --------------89EEC5A58FAC5AFFA6240245--