From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Context/Style/Spelling - Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:16:20 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan27.072805.241@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>    >There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play
>    >moral relativity. My position is such that, an individual and
>    >a group weigh what is best for all concerned. What is best
>    >can be very fundamental- best wages to live on, health
>    >coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.
>    >
>Well, to be kind about it, I would say only that "Coram Populo" is a typical
>victim of our "modern" edukational system, and hence, essentially can not
>reason.

Again you cannot spell - Oh wait I see, it is a sarcasm... but then again.

>
>It is rare indeed that I actually laugh out loud, but to read that "There is
>no basis (moral) to give anyone civil or individual rights." immediately
>followed by a sentence providing just such a basis is, well, hilarious.
>

Well it is obvious that you cannot read and make sense of what someone
has written- I am glad that you had a good laugh.  

Now read carefully-  I stated 'there is no moral basis for anything if you
wish- to play moral relatively', then I stated "MY POSITION IS SUCH THAT"

And what is the sentence that is giving you this problem?  I do not see
any thing where I stated one thing and said another.

>However, these postings ARE a serious problem, and, IMO, likely THE problem
>with the USA today.

Yes- your posting are a serious problem, in many ways.  1) they lack continuity
and context 2) spelling is not too great (I will assume keyboard fumbling)
3) postings tend to twist and turn and attempt to build (create) relationships
that are not completely valid.

>
>Loosely called ACM, or anti-conceptual mentality, the ACM person is
>incapable of treating the world as a unified whole. Instead, his/her
>"rational process" consists of slogans, images, sound and video bites,
>and a whole horde of imagery, devoid of any connetional rational underpinning.

This appears to be you - let me support my observation.  You constantly
resort to naming calling (slogans), use acronyms (sound/video bites), us
old world thinking to support new world concepts (NAZI, commumist, socialist).

Maybe you should stay away from the SJMN and WSJ for awhile.  They seem to
have you confused about how to process information.

>
>I see this over and over on the net -- a slogan here, name calling there,
						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>and an inability (or, perversely, a refusal) to treat the concepts
>"presented" in an ACM post *as* a concept.
>

Whoa!!!  I had to mark out the above phrase- and to use an old slogan,
"this is the pot calling the kettle black"...  You are the master of 
name calling.

And as I have pointed out, many postings lack contextual information and
therefore have no particular direction presented.  Always keep in the mind
that what you type has no connotation added from facial expressions, or 
voice usage.

[deleted disconnected thought train]

>
>I used to think these people were perverse -- now I believe that they are
>sincere (mostly) and simply can not deal with connected concepts.

Well then that is your mental failure, or inability to understand much
of what other people present- becuase in general, if you do not agree
with them, then it means you can block it out or degrade it.

>
>In any case, the above example is classic. It would be nice to debate with
>"Coram Populo", but, damn it, he can't think his way out of a paper bag.

>Nice enthusiam, but, gee whiz, his posts are an embarrasment.

Are they?  Well I would stand way back and take a look at what you have 
posted in the past, and just take a moment to think about how embrassing
it might be for you.  I have read responses from other people to your
posting- and I am afraid that they are not very positive in general, and
alot of them, have to to style, not content.