From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: This is a.f.d-q (was Quayle is a Nazi)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: Society For Putting Things on Top of Other Things

In article <1992Sep24.205633.28709@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) continues his meaningless drivel:

    [Maddi told John Switzer to post about Dannikins on a.f.d-q or
     to choose a more appropriate group, after JS posted something
     that had zero, scratch, nada to do with Dan-oe]

     Steve Chaney attempts to ride to the rescue, but falls off his horse:

>>>Seeing as that Dan Quayle is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and this IS a
>>>newsgroup devoted to Dan Quayle, if John Switzer's got to leave here,
>>>then so do YOU. 
>>
>>How does that follow?  Dan is a Golf fan, but that does not mean we
>>should post PGA results here.  Dan is from Indiana, but that does not
>>mean we should post University of Indiana basketball scores here.
>>Dan is a fan of Tom Clancy, but that does not mean we should post
>>reviews of _Red Storm Rising_ here.
>
>Because PGA Golf is not a part of the major string of events involving
>Dan Quayle. Murphy Brown & Dan Quayle are very seriously related events,
>which was the PRIORITY of my article. (Did you remember that, idiot?)
>And Rush Limbaugh is also heavily into handling the Murphy Brown thing,
>so I threw him in, because he is a supporter of Dan Quayle's position. 
>
>In other words, Rush & Murphy are FAR CLOSER to the Dan Quayle issue
>than PGA Golf.

This is truly amazing!  Chaney once again cannot understand the
difference between cause and effect.  Gee Steve, I mean Dennis,
Ted Koppel covered the Murphy Brown/Dan Quayle incident too.  Let's
discuss _Nightline_ on this group.  I'm going to talk about how
Koppel bites the back of his tongue when he cuts someone off.
That's relevent, by your idiotic analogy.

No, there's no point explaining logical consequences to you.  Your
neurons got shorted out from that trickle-down charger.

>>If Dan is a fan of Rush Limbaugh, then first of all you will have
>>to prove this (which you haven't), and second of all, you will have
>>to discuss why he (Dan) would approve of what he (Rush) has to say.
>
>I believe Dan Quayle has said he listens to the Rush Limbaugh Show on
>the radio.

Will someone explain why DennisSteve does not prove anything he
is asked to, and still won't go away?  SteveDennis, when I ask for
a proof that means a citation.  That means 
   What did Dannikins say
   When did he say it
   Where did he say it
   Who reported that he said it
   
The reason for this nitpicking is so your assertion could be verified.
You know what verified means?  It means when you keep repeating the
same thing over and over, that doesn't make it true.  

"I believe he said he listens to Rush" is not a proof.  It is 
conjecture.  

>>Why is it that the further Right you are, the less able you are to
>>understand logical fallacies?  
>
>Why is it that the further Left you are, the more lies you make about
>the condition of the world? And in the case of that Nazi poster a day or
>so back, why is it that you folks seem to like to pull little pranks and
>b.s. like that? (And I strongly believe that the context of that letter
>pointed directly to a liberal prank.) 

Huh?  First of all, you didn't answer my question.  Answer it or
get lost.  Secondly, what do liberals have to do with either lies
or pranks?  Thirdly, what does anything I have to say have to do
with liberals?  Since you are once again blowing smoke, farting
rhapsodic, and wasting bandwidth, you will not tell us.  So just
go away.

>>John continues to make ad hominem
>>remarks that are a.) unfunny and b.) not about either Dan Quayle or
>>anyone in a debate with Dan Quayle.  You continue to engage in
>>the fallacies of assertion without proof, assertion by repetition,
>>and in this case here, secundum quid (talking about Rush because you
>>claim Dan likes him, but not in the context of Dan).
>
>You stupid dolt. The issue came off of a post I put on this newsgroup
>which was VERY RELATED TO DAN QUAYLE. 

Once again, you are asserting without proof.  But since I have a threaded
newsreader, I can verify that you are a liar.  The original article was
from the "German student," which became a bit of a flamefest.  At some
point John Switzer made an inflammatory comment about Nazis, and I told
him that not only he was full of horse-puckey, but that it didn't belong
on this group.  And that's when you butt in.

Maybe you call liberals liars because you're the liar.  Or maybe you
can explain what "Quayle is a Nazi" has to do with Rush Limbaugh and
Murphy Brown (hint: zilch).

John's post had nothing to do with Dannikins, and neither does
yours.  Now go away.

>Your arguments are all false at their premise, but other than that,
>they're okay.

Prove it, DennisSteve.  You can't, so go away.

>>I don't read Rush's fan-group, so go sputter over there all you want.
>>You want to play here, you'd better stick to the subject and support
>>your assertions.  
>
>I am supporting them. Now show me where YOUR proof is. You don't HAVE
>any. A common trait among Far Lefties.

What does that have to do with you and me?  You and Twitzer both
play that stupid passing-insult game rather than back up your assertions.
So far, you have failed to
    prove Dan listens to Rush
    discuss what Dan likes or dislikes about Rush
    show why your arguments are not proof by assertion, secundum quid,
      and/or transforming the consequent
    support anything John said (neither did he, so I guess it was a lie)
    show any understanding of how to make a point (hint: it isn't by
      calling people names or shouting at them)

You have, however, incorrectly assumed several things about me.  In
this very post, you implied I was either liberal or Far Left.  Neither
is true.  You also referred to me as a male, which is also not true.

But what could you expect from someone who is a liar, Dennis?

Awwww, did I hurt your PRIDE?  Did I take away your POWER?
Back to the CLOSET for you, ChaneyHall.  I think Rush really loves
people like you, so get your cute little butt over there.  If you
have anything to say about Dannikins, better stick to the subject 
if you come back here.

But do us a favor and don't.  You're too easy to show up.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle