Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : Richard Clark
Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 09:50:56

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:54:20 -0500, Matt Osborn <> wrote:
>No Richard, it didn't originate from me. 
Again, in contradiction with:
>I merely presented the views
with an affirmation of it being speculation:
>of others in a new light.
This is commonly known as putting your words in other's mouths. Again,
self-fulfilling prophecy.

>So you think everyone else should be the arbiter?  Or perhaps that
>anybody else should be the arbiter?

Hi Matt,

A very strange question.  You offer it in terms of a projection.  The
question:
>So you think everyone else should be the arbiter?
Is phrased not about a neutral subject, who should be arbiter, but
rather is couched as do I think....  

The neutral context would have simply asked: Who should be arbiter?

What I think is expressed by me, not you.  You might ask questions,
but phrasing them in speculative terms and projecting them into my
mind is a prejudicial bias.

>Once again though, we digress from the argument. Does an atheist
>believe in anything outside himself?  I submit that he most certainly
>does.  You have admitted as much when you introduced ethics which
>requires a basis.

See what I mean?  You have injected your own belief by asserting I
made an admission.  An admission is a loaded statement in a Christian
cultural context relating to guilt.  You could have as easily pointed
out I raised the subject, which is a neutral observation.  As such,
this bias is inserting itself as a judgment of the moral validity and
application of otherwise bland statements.

>Feel free to present an argument that rebuts any of those points.

Once you free yourself of contextual prejudices.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

.