Subj : The War Has No Clothes To : Jazzman From : Daemon Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 01:01 pm Re: The War Has No Clothes By: Jazzman to Daemon on Tue Sep 27 2005 08:02 pm > > look and see for themselves what sources are actually cited before excret > > their adverse opinions onto an arguement.) > > Excreting ? YUCK! I was only attempting to add to the conversation you lol Sorry - I like to make my metaphors colorful and it's almost an automatic process nowadays. Before I continue through your response, I'll recognize that's why the tone of my reply apparently struck in enough of a personal way to you that it apparently triggered a highly-defensive response and minimize my own tone accordingly. > Excreting ? YUCK! I was only attempting to add to the conversation you > apparently wanted by posting the links that you posted. Or, maybe i'm Well, just FYI... When I fish for conversation, it's for conversation based on something other than straw-man positions. In fact, you may have noticed over the last few years that I'm pretty critical of straw man's arguements in general. Got a contrary point of view on something? Great. All I ever ask anyone who does is to show me why the contrary view is more valid than the one I present. Most people (including yourself so far on this particular point) completely fail to so much as make a reasonable effort. *shrug* Hardly my problem, you know. > apparently wanted by posting the links that you posted. Or, maybe i'm > all wet and should have realized that the links you posted was an > attempt on your part to educate those who disagree with your paranoia > because after viewing your links, the words arrogant, know-it-all, > whining and windbag immediately came to mind. Sort of similiar to your > posts. :) Maybe you're all wet. Maybe you're not. Hard to tell when you simply post an opinion and make no attempt to actually give that opinion the slightest bit of validity by backing it up somehow. Though the instantaneous whining of THIS post I'm replying to may seem to some to indicate that you ARE all wet, you KNOW it, and would rather be petulant about having been caught stroking your intellect in the message base than present a reasonable point of view. I mean come on now - the closest you came to citing any kind of source was to say MTV was PROBABLY a cited source, obviating the fact you diddn't actually even fully read what you're criticizing in the first place. *shrug* But maybe you're right on the ball. Who'd know? > > Surely, you have oodles and oodles of ACTUAL intelligence to present ag > > that which you allege so blatantly lacks it, yes? > > "Oodles and oodles". Now there's a brain-buster quote from the > inteligensia that is Daemon. It's totally obvious to me that > the author of the links you cite does lack any sign of ACTUAL > intelligence and suffers from extreme paranoia and is dellusional > on top of that. "Oodles and oodles" is a complex phrase to you? Odd. If memory serves, it was part of a lyric from the old children's show, "The Electric Company". Now, if the phrase isn't too high-brow for pre-school children but it's a "brain-buster" to you... Well, maybe you should stick to the shallow end of the Dovenet pool. As to the author and his position - again, all you're throwing back's an opinion devoid of substance. Now - I DID post the link to inspire conversation. This, however, isn't it. It's a way/no-way arguement. I INVITE you to take a contrary view and ask nothing more than to expand on why you take the view. That's too much to ask? > > Or are we to assume from the limited exposition of your mind's inner wo > > that written works, categorically, that are in SUPPORT of GWB, no matter > > Listen, if you don't want people responding to these Ward Churchill > style lightweight links, don't post them. You don't have to be such > a rudey-poo. Don't flatter yourself. If you can't handle someone pointing out that your straw man's positions are straw man's positions, make an attempt to back up your opinions or simply keep them to yourself and avoid all possible criticism. > > Now, THAT would be an essay of yours I'd honestly love to see attempted > > presented. > > I have a great title too, "Leftist paranoid fantasties of sinister > forces running America". :) So, to expand on the question I asked previously, now you assert categorically that to criticize GWB is automatically "leftist", and to support him is therefore automatically "rightist"? Are you aware that the Right is not very happy with GWB latey, BTW? Do you really have the slightest clue what you're talking about or is the lack of any kind of supportive reasoning indicative of the fact that you simply don't HAVE any? [daemon] In the shuffling madness... --- þ Synchronet þ Necropolis - necropolisbbs.darktech.org .