From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:32:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep28.193246.12948
Organization: insert anything here

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

	Wow!  I actually "wrote" this time...  An improvment.

>> 	You *just* *don't* *get* *it*, do you?  (This is a rhetorical
>> question, we already know that this is the case...)

>> 	I didn't lie.  You claimed twice that I did.  You don't have
>> any proof to counter me, except "I don't agree, but I can't say anything,
>> so I'll call him a liar, and keep doing so until he backs down."

>  Actually, you are the one who is saying that I called you a liar.
>I only alluded to that in my previous post. 

	Hmmmm.... et's see what language is used for this so-called
"allusion".

>Article: 88773 of soc.motss
>Newsgroups: soc.motss

>   Yeah right. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you'll eventually
>believe it. Pot. Kettle. Black. Pathetic.
>   BTW, don't expect silence when you make ludicrous claims and 
>boldfaced lies. It ain't the way it works crybaby.

	Last I checked, "when you make lidicrous claims and
baldfaced lies", *is* calling someone a liar.  Not an allusion,
not a misconstrument, but a complete accusation.

>  You are correct though. I do doubt the veracity of your claims.
>They are so out of character with any libertarian thought I have
>ever seen that I can only guess that you either made it up or
>mangled what this guy said beyond recognition. Either way, I
>have to doubt your intellectual honesty.

	Duh.  You already made that point clear.  
Not that it means anything...  Apart from namecalling you haven't
contributed anything to compare with what I've already offered.
That is except for "this doesn't mesh with what I think is true,
therefore he's lying".  Not very deep.

>  As far as addressing "issues", you have proven yourself to be
>completely irrational on this point. A content free slam like
>your "conversation" does not even deserve anything more than 
>exposing the strawman for what it is. If you cannot see beyond
>that your strawman argument then it is probably hopeless.

	Heh.... Meaning.... um, nothing.  It still falls under
the heading of "I can't bring anything to this discussion, so
I'll just discredit (or try to discredit) the other person."
Snore --- the 3rd time around it really is the boy who called wolf, no?

>> 	As for the continual namecalling, this coping mechanism
>> you've developed doesn't work outside of most school playgrounds.
>> I suggest you cultivate something a little more mature.

>  Hon, I suggest you run to the bathroom and look in the mirror
>for about 20 minutes. Your current little spree of ad hominem
>against half of this group is pretty amusing. If you don't like
>ad hominem attacks, perhaps you shouldn't practice them yourself.

	I've ad hominem'd 40,000+ people?  News to me.
Of course since it seems every term has a different meaning in
the Thomasocentric universe than the one the rest of us seem to live
in I can only conclude "ad hominem" must translate for you as "anything
Mikey Thomas doesn't like or feels threatened by".  Not my problem. 

>  All you look like now is a crybaby.

	Oooooooh!  I'm rubber and you're glue - whatever you say
bounces off me and sticks to you.....!!!!!   Pffffft!...

[Soc.motss: Is this insane or what?  Next is he going to bring in my
parents and question my heritage?]

What we have here (regarding libertarianism) is a *difference of opinion*.
And we can walk away from that, by just resolving it as that.
In the rest of it - about the only thing left is an apology for
calling me a liar.  But don't worry, I won't be holding my breath
for it.  I'm sure you have MUCH More technique at it than I do... I 
mean I'm about 27 years out of practice.

BBC