From: darling@cellar.org (Thomas Darling)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: FLYERS notes 4/1
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:03:57 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

gomer@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Richard J Coyle) writes:

> I thought we had been over this.  Get it straight, Tommy.

Rick's debate notes, part one: If you can't dispute someone's facts, adopt a
patronizing nickname for them, regardless of whether or not they've
respected YOUR wishes as to what YOU like to be called.

> Acton has never demonstrated even the briefest moment of courage towards
> anyone that I've ever witnessed, whether you want to admit it or not.

If you're saying that Acton has never fought with anyone larger than
yourself, you're completely and utterly wrong.  But you've sort of made that
a way of life here.

> I certainly haven't seen anyone act as though it were an act of significant
> accomplishment, as you seem to.

I said it was a significant accomplishment?  Where?

Current score for your post: Truth 2, Rick 0.

> Frankly, I think you failed your Delaware County Community College
> logic course, Tommy.

Do you think this is where I attended school, or is this another petty
insult not related to the issue?

In either case, the truth is up on you by a field goal.

> You reach amazing conclusions some times.

The logic was clearly spelled out with examples and analogies.  You chose to
avoid them, fooling nobody.

> Let's just, for a minute, suppose what I was going to argue against.

Sure.  I'll expect a rehash of my previous examples involving new Flyers
fandom, Willie Horton, etc.

> Most of your retorts were limited to  "you're lying",

When you lied,

> or "that never happened", or "you made that up",

When you fabricated events and/or discussions,

> or "you've pee'ed on yourself".

When you pitifully unleashed 80 lines of verbal excrement, after your little
speech was rent asunder by a bit of reality. 

> There isn't much future in going around in a circle over that stuff.

I'll restate it clearly for you, Rick, since you're rapidly fleeing from the
facts.  Follow along if you can.

   1.  You stated that all Flyers fans have no right to argue about
       cheap shots, merely because some Flyers have commited some.

   2.  I said that this was rubbish, and cut your reasoning apart,
       inviting you to fault my logic.
  
   3.  Several posts and numerous peurile tangents later, you have
       still failed to do so.

> >Apology, please.
> 
> [non-hockey-related insult deleted]

It's no longer necessary to speculate on either your logic OR your manners,
Rick, because you keep providing evidence like this.  I don't, however, know
whether or not your family is proud of you.
 
> End of public discussion, Bud.  Feel free to send mail to continue.
> If you must.

No, Rick.  You began with a public bad-mouthing of Flyers fans.  You can end
it with a public apology.

Frankly, I don't care if you wish to continue making an ass of yourself in
public by avoiding the consequences of something every news-reader can see
you said.  You can save a bit of face by taking back your ill-concieved
remark, or you can keep digging yourself into a deeper hole with further
juvenile displays and ignorance of the facts.  The choice is yours, but I
think we've learned enough about your maturity and knowledge of hockey to
know what to expect.  I invite you to prove us wrong.

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\\\^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Thomas A. Darling \\\ Fact HQ Studio * record production * dance re-mixing
darling@cellar.org \\\ music for film * The Cellar BBS:215/654-9184 * FACT
v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~\\\~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey