Subj : The War Has No Clothes
To   : Daemon
From : Jazzman
Date : Wed Oct 05 2005 09:30 am

OTE: TIDE 1.11
 > all.  I hold no hatred for differing POVs or the people that hold them, but
 > great deal of disdain for straw man arguments masquerading as reasoned and
 > supported POVs and the people who present them.

Then you must be most miserable since *ALL* of your postings are
arguments from assorted left-wing radical web sites masquerading
as factual data. You want to throw the word "straw-man" around,
you should as you are the ultimate GURU of straw-man arguments.

 >   Of late, you've presented yourself as a dedicated member of the way/no-way
 > argument club.  (Maybe more than lately, actually, but I can't say I've
 > bothered to read anything you've posted before recently, so I leave that to
 > gallery to decide.)

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. That's one of your main problems, you close your
eyes whenever anyone points you towards the light. And further, you
lie. You say you havn't bothered reading anything i've posted recently
but you continue to respond to all my posts.

 >   See, the opinions, values, and beliefs aren't what I have a problem with.
 > They, in case you really are too ignorant to know this, are what makes
 > communication possible between any two individuals, in any capacity, in any

Then you aren't being truthful. And in case *your* to ignorant to know
this, there are many types of communication and many capacities of
which to communicate. Diversity of opinion can be a good thing as long
as logical and respectful debate/argument can be maintained. Clearly,
your unable to be respectful.

 >   Unless one side of the discussion has too dimly-lit an intellect to bother
 > with citations of fact and simply conducts itself in a sophomoric
 > self-congratulatory manner for simply managing to present their POV in (most
 > coherent sentences.

You've nailed it. Defined yourself to a tee.

 >   Noone's going to congratulate you for being able to present a "way/no-way"
 > style rebuttal to structured debate.  I, maybe far less than others, but hey
 > that's the price you pay for offering ignorant supposition as a rebuttal to
 > specifically cited sources.  If you've been paying attention to my conflicts
 > you imply, a modest amount of forethought may have inspired you to either
 > be prepared to support your position or not try to pass it off as a supporti
 > one to begin with.

The only ignorant argument being offered here is yours. Your the one
trying to pass off "paranoid left-wing" propaganda as factual data.

 >   Then you wouldn't have to be sitting there whining right now.

It appears to me your the one whining and tossing insults. Apparently,
that's about the tall and short of you.

 >   Sure you are.  Every counter you offer devoid of reasoned support is
 > ego-masturbation.  Without anything backing it up, it could hardly be anythi
 > more.

Again, something you evidently know lots about. You really come across
as someone with a horrible attitude.

 >   Let's remember here that this discussion began with you decrying an editor
 > piece I offered for discussion and that you chose to discuss by very obvious

Why don't you remember correctly ? You offered a link for review and
i reviewed it and then commented. "Opinionated dumbness" if i remember
correctly. I stand by that remark. Since you didn't write it, i don't
quite see why your so offended by my comments. Is it merely due to the
fact that i'm right ? If you wish to subscribe to that conspiracy
theory crap ( and that's exactly what it is..crap), be my guest. Just
don't act so surprised whenever someone can tell the difference
between what's real, and what's fantasy.

 >   *shrug*  To which, all I replied with was essentially a request for you to
 > justify your position if his was so unjustifiable.

There is no need to justify opinionated dumbness. It's a conspiracy
theory without merit. Basically, who cares ? Reading that was a
complete waste of time. Reminded me alot of your drivel.

 >   Hardly my fault that, to this day, you have utterly failed to even make an
 > attempt to do so.

And you have utterly failed to make a point.


---
 þ Synchronet þ ´ TBIRDS BBS ´ telnet://tbirds.dyndns.org

.