From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Toop of Other Things
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:08:34 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >    >
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >    >>

>    >>So let's make you happy with your trivia -- I was incorrect
>    >>on the political affiliation.
>    >>
>    >It isn't trivia; it was an important part of your point and I
>    >demolished it. You didn't acknowledge it until I and 3 others
>    >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
>    >called on the facts, you change the subject and bring up some
>    >controversial flame-topic in hope no one notices you didn't
>    >address the issue that you'll say anything, no matter how
>    >false, to prove your point.
>
>Why then, I'm sure that you will have NO problem documenting this, right?

You will be happy to see the several examples I have documented in
merely the posts you made today.  Since your posting style has not
changed, showing your mistakes today is consistent with my claim
that you always do so.

>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.

Ha.  I have called you on FOUR errors of fact in FOUR posts.  In one
day.  I suggest that maybe your sources might be correct, but you
aren't reading them correctly.  I also note you rarely give 
references.

>A lot of people get upset at what I write. Consider the "acid rain" issue
>this week.

I couldn't care less about that thread.  Let's stick to the subject
at hand.  I would suggest people get upset with what you write not
because of your politics, but because you play so fast and loose
with the truth, and because you will break any rule of debate in
order to have the last word.

>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.

What a silence about what?  I'm still waiting for proof that r.h.f.
has become PC since I took over moderation.  That was a direct 
question from me to you, not an aside from another post.  But
you didn't see fit to answer my request that you back up this
statement.  What a silence, indeed.
>
>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?

Did it ever occur to you that this isn't the first time I've called
you on faulty logic or smarmy tactics?  Usually you were arguing
over topics where little fact entered.  Here, however, you made
a claim and I had definite information that the factual claim was
in error.  I have seen others call you on facts in their field
of expertise, though, and I have seen you weasel out of admitting
you goofed.
>
>Unlike others, when an objective mistake is called, I respond to it. Since
>I am not infallible of course, that will happen.

Oh, good.  You will enjoy responding to all the errors I caught you
in, just in one day.  Mind explaining how you managed to make so
many?  By the way, I do not believe your claim here at all, given
your past behavior.

>In this case, I feel the mistake is minor. After all, given the assertion,
>don't you even think it's weird that a Republican judge is getting high
>ranking Democratics comin g to his defense on a very nasty crime?
>Obviously these Democrats must have some reason?

Again, it isn't a minor mistake since your premise was that Democrats
protect their own.  When I pointed out that the judge was not a
Democrat, you now start claiming he's "practically a Democrat."
My point is your conspiracy theories are silly, and your evidence
is virtually non-existent.

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

What big issue?  Just because you're obsessed with it doesn't mean
it has any bearing.  Again, you change the definitions to continue
your argument when called on a point of fact.

>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.

This is not an issue I am avoiding, because it isn't even an issue
to anyone except you.  Another poster pointed out that it is the
rich and powerful who get away with murder; this PC charge of yours
is a smokescreen.  Cramer is obsessed with homosexual = child molester,
and you are obsessed with Politically Correct = Evil.  Both of you
are incapable of seeing anything else since you have these ideas
engraved on your brains too deeply.

You see, there are alternate explanations for what happened with
Watchler.  He was a big shot in GOP circles, was well respected
by both parties, and was in line for a Supreme Court nod because
he did good work.  He went after a woman he knew through GOP
politics; turns out she was also well-connected, and sicced the
FBI on him because she was a pal of Sessions.  It is just as
conceivable that Bush & Co. are learning on everyone to leave
him alone since he's a good party member.

Why is your version of this any more valid than mine?  By the
way I think they're both wrong; I bet MONEY is why they're
not giving him any trouble.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics