rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/30/84)
> The people I quoted would laugh to hear him say that they had produced > "random" (does he know what the word means??) statistics and information vs > "facts". [ARNDT] Biased people usually do laugh when told that they're biased. So? Does that make your non-information any more viable than reasoned thought? (Don't bother, you're not qualified to answer questions on "thought" of any kind.) > Perhaps if I had included information from CAR CARE or COUNTRY GARDENS he > would have a lame brain to stand on. As opposed to quoting statistics randomly gathered and presented in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he has something to say. (By the way, was that your brain you were suggesting for me to stand on?) > In any case where are HIS "facts" or quotes? No, I don't read the journals you subscribe to (including, apparently, those of Rene Guyon and other fringe groups). What I attempt to offer is reasoned logical thought. The points I offer are based on a rational analysis and conclusions resulting from such analysis. If you feel my analysis is wrong, you should point out flaws in my thinking, rather than random quoting of semmingly supportive "evidence". But you don't. You can't. Because you're an asshole. It's that simple. Prove me wrong. Show the flaws in my arguments. Whether or not there are any, you are mentally unable to do so, explaining your need to resort to insult, bogus non-evidence, and nonsense. Prove me wrong, Ken. I've got the farm riding on this one. I'm sure to quadruple my net worth by betting against you. > What DOES constitute legitimate use of journals and "facts". I suspect that > which "fits". Sounds like an accurate picture of Arndt's "selection" process for determining what journals to quote. > Oh look, LOOK. He's bringing in HITLER!!! Why not? Your tactics are no different from his. Obscure the facts. Make a lot of noise. Appeal to emotionality rooted in ingrained beliefs. Make more noise. Make more noise. All you lack is a fancy uniform. (Or is there one in your closet?) > I hope he stays around. He fulfills my need,from time > to time, for an intellectual punching bag. The trouble is, he's too easy - a > sort of intellectual whore. Shouldn't that have read "for me to BE an intellectual punching bag". I couldn't have asked for more. I assume it IS easy for you. Easy because you avoid rational discussion, avoid facts presented to you, avoid questions. Why don't you avoid us, the thinking readers of the net, on a permanent basis? (Answer: because then your compulsive need for attention at any price wouldn't be fulfilled.) > Rosen's refried ideas, (can't really call them ideas) are just nonsense! Why don't you tell us why? (Answer: incapability) Even Bickford, when he avoids explaining why he disagrees with something, does it better than you. > Tell us Rich, what IS the proper use of journals and who ARE the right > authorities to whom we should appeal? Take any of my postings and go through > it and SHOW us why someone I quoted was not proper. What IS a proper "fact"? Obviously, anytime an authority says something, you should listen to it, because it was said by an authority. (Hence, Ken believes in god.) This is Ken's line of thinking. The problem is, he quotes those authorities he agrees with and ignores (or simply derides as garbage without explanation) other authorities. And, as we know, "authorities" don't necessarily agree on anything. Thus we are left to peruse the EVIDENCE and analyze it ourselves rationally. Something Ken has never done and probably never will do. -- BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are all individuals!" CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/02/84)
Without prejudicing the discussion of who, Arndt or Rosen, is more or
less skilled in the art of rhetoric, could you puhleeaze move this
to net.flame or personal mail? C'mon, we've all read the netiquette
article; isn't this exchange out of place everywhere but net.flame?
I have been guilty of this myself, but I think that a little self-control
is needed: if the discussion isn't grounded in gay issues, think before
you post, and act accordingly. If a ongoing discussion moves from a
focus on gay issues onto larger topics, as for instance, the "rights"
discussion, offer to move it to a more appropriate newsgroup.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA