jj@alice.UUCP (03/26/85)
***I assume that I am supposed to know what "the information available ***for one's own watching" is. I don't. OK. Fine. Go out into the street. Look. See. Use your own senses. Tell me that you find ads for marahuajuana and cocaine on every steetcorner, and I'll start wondering about your mental state. ***But I do know what facts are available ***through the various forms of media and news reporting agencies. I can also ***be pretty much asured of their "credibility". Glad you can be assured that the news media are "credible". I'm glad that you assume that the news media presents things in a non-inflamitory and reasoned manner. I'm disgusted, is what I really am. ***If you wantn to call someone a liar, just say it. I don't feel a need to ***use multisylabic words unless they're necessary. I also don't feel a need ***to win a debate. I am just trying to enlighten those who will allow them- ***selves to be enlightened. You do not appear to be one of those people. OK. If you want to insist that you are, you're a liar. You said it, not me. You continuously take your opponents' arguements out of context and then negate them. If you say so (and you appear to have said so), you're doing that on purpose, then you deserve the title you've given yourself. Fine. I prefer to assume that you're not being malicious, but have it your own way. Your emotional blackmail about "enlightened" and so on is just wonderful. If I know that you're wrong, I don't want to be "enlightened". Sure. I suppose you have a bridge for sale, too. Please note that this is also directed to net.flame. Please move your discussion there, it's not deserving of (or deserved by) the readers of net.politics. -- TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE! "... John? Who'd of thought it! ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/29/85)
> > OK. Fine. Go out into the street. Look. See. Use your own senses. > Tell me that you find ads for marahuajuana and cocaine on every steetcorner, > and I'll start wondering about your mental state. I've made it all the way to mentally unstable in you book. And even after I pointed out that dealers DO advertise by way of brand names in Detroit. But I do see your point. How can we trust the credibility of the man in charge of the drug division of the Detroit Police Department? > Glad you can be assured that the news media are "credible". > I'm glad that you assume that the news media presents things in a > non-inflamitory and reasoned manner. I'm disgusted, is what I really am. Oh, and I disgust you, too. You've cast doubt on all news reporting agencies in your postings. Your alternative, I guess, is to hang-out in the ghetto. I'm sorry that your apparent inability to trust the media keeps you from accepting anyone who does. > OK. If you want to insist that you are, you're a liar. You said it, > not me. You continuously take your opponents' arguements out > of context and then negate them. If you say so (and you appear to have > said so), you're doing that on purpose, then you deserve the title > you've given yourself. Fine. I prefer to assume that > you're not being malicious, but have it your own way. I say "if you want to call someone a liar, just say so" and you say the above. (Notice I did not take it out of context). I am a liar because I ask you if you are calling me one. Is this some form of "Newspeak"? BTW, why all the qualifiers, afraid of getting sued or something? > Your emotional blackmail about "enlightened" and so on is just wonderful. > If I know that you're wrong, I don't want to be "enlightened". Sure. > I suppose you have a bridge for sale, too. Why would I try to sell you a bridge? If I showed it to you, you would just argue that it's not a bridge because you decide it isn't. And to use your little tactic, if you feel blackmailed it must be because you have something to feel blackmailed about. You said it, not me. > Please note that this is also directed to net.flame. Please move your > discussion there, it's not deserving of (or deserved by) the readers > of net.politics. I'm glad to see you feel qualified to speak for the hundreds of people that use this facility. Perhaps you should make this suggestion to all the posters you dislike. Then you will only have to read what you want too. That sounds like a great method to inspire discussion! > TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE! > That's what this looks like a case of to me. But then, I can't possibly be right. After all, you have pointed-out them I am some low life that shouldn't be allowed to present, and then defend, my case because it disagrees with your perceptions. Maybe some analysis of YOUR motives might be in order. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***