From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Blabber- and red herrings (was Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:03:37 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.061442.14107@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >called you on it. In the 2 years I've followed this group,
>    >this is the *FIRST TIME* you have *EVER* admitted making
>    >mistake. And you have made a lot of them. Usually, when you
>Why then, I'm sure that you will have NO problem documenting this, right?
>
>In fact, you can't. Unlike most of the posters on this net, when I post
>a fact, I check it with at least one source.
>

So can you document the opposite?  Show us proof that this is one of
the few (if not the first) time you ever have admitted to being wrong
about something.  You always document- with at least one source, that 
is not sufficient for many of the arguments you make. 

>A lot of people get upset at what I write. Consider the "acid rain" issue
>this week.
>
>Probably most of you "believe" that acid rain is killing the forests. I even
>warned, and explicitly asked one bozo "is acid rain killing the forests,
>yes or no." He answered yes. The scientific evidence, and there is a LOT
>of it, says no.

If you haven't seen one of my other post that responses to your 
[anonymous asshole statement] you then know it was me.  And for
some unknown and unforeseen reason, I guess my address and name
did not get posted correctly- meaning that I do not post anonymously.

But you of course, as usual, just to the worst conclusions.  As an
accident goes, at least it shows how you react to things you don't
know or understand.

You have missed out again - I am amazed that you on one hand you
condemn scientific evidence that is proposed, and on the other 
misinterpret what you read.

No one has conclusive proof that acid rain is or is not damaging forests.
But in high elevation situation the evidence is fairly overwhelming that
it is causing severe problems with these conifers.  And it does kill and
disrupt aqua life in lakes.

>
>What a silence, eh Maddi. Actually what happens is a lot of people "BELIEVE"
>they "know" something, when actually all they've done is ingested some
>propaganda.
>
>
You as well ingest much in the way of propoganda- your favorite sources
appear to be WSJ and SJMN.

>In your case, isn't interesting that in the 2 years you've followed this
>group, that this is the FIRST time you've called what you claimed is one of
>many mistakes?
>

Why?  She doesn't need to do anything until she feels that she wants
to.  It is called, as you say, freedom of choice and action.  She acts
when she thinks she should.  Does that bother you?  Mr. Strayt.
  
>
>Unlike others, when an objective mistake is called, I respond to it. Since
>I am not infallible of course, that will happen.
>

What an admission, it is almost pious. 


>But you can't respond to that can you? That would be addressing the big issue.
>

Ooooo! the big issue.  Your responses to the big issues are in the area of;

Your an idiot.
Your a lame brain.
Your a stupid asshole.

Yep! that certainly is addressing the issues...

>
>In any case, let me restate the issue you are AVOIDING. Polictically Correct
>politicians get away with murder. And (I have reserached this one most
>carefully) Sol Watchler is one most Politically Correct judge. In fact,
>it is surprising he is a Republican at all -- my guess he didn't change
>party affiliatian because he was doing quite well. He was in line for
>a Democratic nomination goody (perhaps the Supreme Court was the speculation
>of one article) and it actually helped him to be a Republican because then
>the Democrats could show how fair they were in nominating a Republican.
>

So now apply your grand research (WSJ and SJMN) and do something about it.
If it bothers you that much- take the initiative and change something.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7985 scruz.politics:115 ca.politics:10502