From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: I guess Ted ran out of substantial things to say?
Date: 21 Jan 93 04:53:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1993Jan19.231826.23159@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>To all readers of all newsgroups everywhere!  Attention!  Do not get 
>involved in net.discussions with Tom Peregrin.

At least, not if you don't want to have to work hard.  Note that
Doug Page has beaten me back on the point about Secular Humanism being 
a religion.   Not that I've given up,  I've just taken a new tack.  
Before then I made a glib comment about reagan/bush/quayle and Iran/Contra,
and somebody forced me to retract that statement.  You can "beat me",
but you can't do it by platitudes and misquotes.

>1) He will post a response on the net.  Before you get an opportunity 
>   to respond, he will post three more times telling everyone what a 
>   chicken you are for not responding to his post.

As I explained, my newsreader crashed.  Subsequent use of the newsreader 
didn't show my own message, so I thought the message hadn't gone out.
All of that was explin (and apologized for if there was duplication)
in the second copy of the message.

>2) He will be very nice to you over e-mail, but ignore your e-mails 
>   in discussions on the net.

Pot calling the kettle black.

>5) He will assume that since he has proven you to be a fool (in his 
>   mind) on one topic that he can carry his criticisms of you over 
>   onto other subjects.  (ex.  Since you are stupid about abortion, 
>   you are likewise stupid about the budget deficit.)

"By their fruits you shall know them".  I assume that a tree that bears 
peaches on one side of the tree bears peaches on the other side as well.  If 
you make broad claims about accuraccy in one area which are subsequently
proven incorrect, it certainly damages your credability in other areas.

>7) You will make a citation from a given book.  He will find a different 
>   edition of that book, which uses different wording.  He will post the 
>   new citation and call you names.

Note that I said that to give you the benefit of the doubt, I went and
looked up ALL editions of the book contained in our library.  (You didn't 
even look up any single edition of the book).   What you so strenuously 
claimed was an exact quote was not an exact quote from ANY edition 
of the book I could find.  I pointed that out.   The page numbers
are qrong for either edition, as is the quote.  I then suggested that 
EITHER 1) you were being  duped, or 2) you were attempting to dupe us.
I gave you way out..  you could have admitted that you had simply read the
quotes in another book or a pamphlet, and admitted that the author had
misquoted to you...

Note that I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times...  I did
your bibliographic reserach for you.  Even when I found your quotes
were not right, I still allowed for the fact that you might be a dupe rather
than a liar.

Rather than whining like a spoiled child, you could have gone and tried 
to find the truth yourself.  But instead you just go straight to
character defamation.  Me, I at least waited until I did the library research
before I called you a dupe (or are you a liar?  You tell me.).

>8) He will ignore any apologies or pleas for sensibility.  

As soon as I ever get one, I'll ignore it.  Until then, it is a interesting
philosophical question "can you ignore something which doesn't exist"?

>Personal to Tom himself:

>I take back any nice things or any admissions of culpability that I have 
>ever written to you or posted on the net in discussion with you.

I don't mind if you take back your nice things.  I can certainly live
with that.   But "admissions of culpability"?  You mean that you now
retract those few times you admitted you were wrong, and now retroactively
insist you were right?  Not because you were right, but because you are
throwing a snit?   My, truth is a fragile thing in your hands.

Come on Ted... you made a challenge in one of your messages...  you said
"if you are an honest debator then you will have to admit I am right when
you get this reference"    Okay Ted,   I return the challenge;  are you
honest enough to explain where the misquote came from?

Tom
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh