From: plu@math.psu.edu (Todd Andrew Simpson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:16:54 GMT
	<1992Oct6.234555.14869@advtech.uswest.com>
	<1992Oct7.020617.4255@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University

In article <1992Oct7.020617.4255@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

   In article <1992Oct6.234555.14869@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
   >> = (Rich Lund) writes:
   >>: = (drieux, just drieux) writes:
   >
   >>: I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
   >>: my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
   >>: and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
   >
   >>What the hell are you ragging on Dan and Rush for and including
   >>your mindless liberal crap in talk.politics.guns?
   >
   >"Dan"?  "Rush"?  HAHAHAhahahahahaha.
   >
   >Pathetic.
   >
   >I'll bet Limbaugh laughs his ass off at all the STUPID people making him
   >rich.  He's the New Televangelist, since all those religious fakes have
   >been discredited.
   >
   >>Conservatives are way out in front on the RKBA issue and there
   >>is no way some turn the other cheek-love the criminal more than
   >>their self-involve government in every aspect of our life Liberal
   >>son's a bitches like Clinton and Gore are going to fight to protect
   >>our rights.
   >
   >(I can ALMOST understand what Rich is squeezing out through clenched
   >teeth...)
   >
   >Boy, did you blow it.  Have fun in the imminent discussions of ordnance
   >between you and drieux.  Heh heh.
   >
   >And geez, calm down.  I can almost feel your spittle spraying in that
   >last paragraph of yours.
   >
   >>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
   >>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
   >
   >Gads, what a liar, in addition to being civically incompetent.
   >
   >Get this: Quayle is a fucking joke who has *no business* being a
   >heartbeat away from the presidency.  Combined with that pit bull he
   >calls a wife, I pray every day for Georgie's health.  And I'm an
   >atheist.  Bush should be slapped silly for insulting the people in this
   >manner.
   >
   >And, I believe, he soon *will* be.
   >
   >>: So I will work on typing slower, and using only
   >>: big block letters, so as not to intellectually
   >>: stress their Over Workded little Minds....
   >
   >>Maybe the folks with those "Over Workded little Minds" will be
   >>the ones to save you from Clinton's gestapo police.
   >
   >You're plain stupid.  Buchanan and his right-wing religiously-fogged ilk
   >/are so blatantly near fascist...fuck it.  It's not worth arguing with
   >someone as thick as you.
   >
   >Go ahead and vote for a jerk whose party's platform was written TOTALLY
   >by crazed "christian" fundamentalists.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
   >/>I'll shoot crazed gun fanatics like you myself if you come around my
   >door, Cowboy.
   >
   >It *is* a kick seeing your frustration over the Bush-Quayle buffoonery
   It never fails to amaze me to see the frustration that liberals will
   demonstrate almost on cue when someone dares to disagree with their drivel.
   The intelligent will notice that no substantial issues were raised.  Simply
   irrelevant name calling and mindless personal attacks on people that the
   attacker only vaguely knows.  Also noteworthy is the lapse into vulgarity
   which is of course the last refuge of a limited vocabulary. As to the charge
   that all these people that have the "gall" to disagree with the politically
   correct are "near fascist", is that like being sorta pregnant?  Make your
   points.  Take your shots.  But please try and keep the discussion a notch above
   gutteral ramblings.   P.S leave your address, I'll send you a dollar so you can
   buy a clue.

As a liberal and a card-carrying member of the Politically Correct Thought
Police, I am infuriated no end that you of all people should have the
audacity to dare to disagree with my drivel.  (Well, to be precise it's
not MY drivel, but that's beside the point.)  Nevertheless, I shall attempt
to carry on the discussion in a civilized manner.  It is indeed noteworthy
that the liberal to whom you responded in your post resorted to mindless
personal attacks and vulgarity instead of a clear-headed, logical analysis
of the arguments made by the individual to whom _he_ responded.  However, 
it seems to me that the latter may also be judged guilty of some of the same
charges (I have in mind such words and phrases as `hell', `crap', `liberal
sons of bitches', and `Clinton's gestapo police').  This is of course quite
shocking to a liberal such as myself, accustomed as I am to the idea that the
validity of an argument is proportional to the baseness of the language in
which it is expressed.  If conservative, politically incorrect, anti-gun-
control Americans can be as hysterical as we liberals are, then what's the
point of being liberal?  I don't know.  Perhaps I'm just not in a good mood
today.  In fact, I think the whole problem can be traced to drieux, who quite
foolishly proclaimed his (or her) intention to `dumb down' posts to
alt.fan.dan-quayle, which I had been reading.  Although drieux appears to
be a liberal, I was among those who would have preferred that he (or she)
never have cross-posted to that group in the first place.  I have taken the
liberty of directing followups to talk.bizarre, where I hope they will stay.
As for the dollar, thanks; but I think I prefer to remain clueless.

- Todd Andrew Simpson