david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (02/03/84)
First of all let me make it clear that the subject line of this
article is Phil Polli's, not mine. It is yet another of Mr. Polli's
ridiculously transparent and offensive distortions.
Now, let's get down to it, friends...
>Can I assume that you are criticizing the
>gentleman who recently expressed the desire to bash my skull in?
> As you might recollect, that was part of his effective retort.
No, you may not so assume. Unlike your "disgrace to the human race"
comments, he was reacting not to your opinions but to a vicious
personal attack. If you can't discern the difference between the two,
well, I feel sorrier for you than ever.
Hell, if you had said the same things about me I too would have begun
looking for the proverbial blunt instrument. Who DO you think you
are anyway???
>As far as considering people I have never met to be a disgrace to
>the human race, I have personally never met Hitler, Stalin, or Amin.
>Even so, I consider them a disgrace, based on my knowledge of
>their actions and their avowed philosophy. Do you consider Reagan
>immature and despicable for what he calls the leaders of the USSR,
>even though he has never met them?
First of all, to draw parallels between any of the parties to this
argument and "Hitler, Stalin, or Amin" is too asinine to warrant any
further comment. Does reality play ANY part in your thinking?
More generally, when involved in intellectual debate, it is usually
held that the disagreement is with the position, not the man. Resort
to the type of character assassination you practice is virtually always
a technique employed by the party with the weaker argument; first, to
shift the discussion away from its basic points, and second to smokescreen
the ineptitude off the assassin. If the shoe fits...
Finally, I do not "consider Reagan immature and despicable for what he
call the leaders of the USSR," primarily because, to my knowledge anyway,
he has NEVER attacked "the leaders of the USSR," only the system/philo-
sophy they represent.
>Do you really consider it garbage to point out that someone who advocates
>the deliberate starvation of millions of people is displaying the
>moral sensibilities of Attila the Hun? Nice to know you've got
>your priorities straight. It's OK to advocate starving all those
>people, but let's not get insulting about it!
No, I don't consider such behavior garbage; unfortunately, Mr. Polli,
no one on this net has ever advocated a position anywhere near the one
you cite above!
This is yet another instance of your basic rhetorical style---take your
opponent's arguments, distort them beyond all recognition, then triumph-
phantly throw them back in his face as if you were proving something.
Couple that with your incredibly self-righteous arrogance and you may
begin to see why you would not win any popularity polls on this net, nor
do your superficial ad hominum arguments win any converts.
As for my priorities, I must admit, you've got a point. They are
obviously screwed up. After all, I've just spent fifteen minutes
responding to you when I could have been cleaning the catbox. There,
at least, the s**t doesn't pretend to smell like roses.
Love and sloppy kisses, Phil. Sleep well.
--- das