Subject:
|
Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2001 08:32:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1796 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> You assume too much. I did that already, or something close to it. Didn't
> like the quality of sites I found, and thought I'd just (without any
> aspersions being cast, which is why I just asked outright instead of
> prefacing it with "I already looked and got crapola") ask for cites that
> were fact based non diatribe.
For the love of heaven, must we start a new thread as to define what a fact
is? How about diatribe? Were there not enough facts given at these sites?
The answers to your questions are often not right in front of you. Seek well
and learn well.
> Your first cite wasn't so hot, it being the front page of a site that
> doesn't make it easy to find facts...
Funny, I found a bunch of interesting reports and other links. Just how long
did you spend there?
> so I asked for more and your subsequent
> ones are better, because you presumably know the PETA site better than I do.
Actually, it was my first time ever visiting PETA online.
> I'd rather see some non PETA stuff as well but you did find better stuff
> there when encouraged to do so, which was good.
> Yes, I could continue to keep searching...
Or even start searching it seems...
> to find information that supports
> your assertions, but the onus is on you to back them up, not on me to do
> your homework for you.
No problem, just do your own homework to prove my assertions invalid. Fair
enough? Aren't you the one who could "easily dig up factoids" in a "factoid
war"? Here's a good opportunity to put your talents to work. I say this to
the same man who gave the Intifadah as an example of how the PLO was worse
than the Israeli government.
> Further, while blindly wandering into a cave is a
> feasible way of mapping the cave, it's not the most effective. Far better to
> take Frank with you if Frank already explored it and knows where the useful
> stuff is. Same thing here. This is your hot button, presumably you know an
> effective path into the issue. Search engines aren't it.
Depends on how willing one is to dig around. It seems you pretty much gave
up after the first 5 minutes. Give it a little more effort or accept you
were never really interested in learning more.
> I'd expect the same thing if I were pushing one of my own hot buttons, and
> Scott's aspersions aside, I have dug up stuff that was factual and
> informative in the past. The first amendment is one of my hot buttons in
> fact, and when I dug up a survey (from a non libertarian org, no less) that
> I thought interesting and rather scary, you asked rather baldly why I
> provide references to surveys.
Didn't you yourself call it "Libertarian Propaganda?" And I recall praising
your devotion to the party, but asked for clarity of your intent. And
explained the intent of my question, no less.
> Note carefully my response to the pig farm cite you gave. That was a more
> factual cite than the first cite. So my response was reasoned and rather
> supportive of doing something about it. What more can you ask for?
We don't owe each other anything, Larry. I'm not expecting you to think like
me or agree with me. But I trust my instincts about your motives and I don't
think you are being totally honest or sincere with me.
> You are the one that needs to change your ways here, I think. I find your
> constant assuming that everyone's attacking rather tiresome, especially
> considering that you make no bones about lecturing other people about their
> manners and their conduct here. Knock it off and stay on topic.
Now how fair and factual is that? "Lecturing people?" As I recall, the issue
involved ONE person being (by their own admission) rude to me on-line,
without any deliberate provocation on my part. And I made no bones about
noting the limit to such behavior. Stop twisting the facts, again.
> This is the last I'll say about your manners, this time, unless you keep
> worrying at it. Stick to the facts, provide useful cites (like you did
> elsewhere) and let the ideas flow freely. It's what the readership wants, as
> well as what I want, and I would hope, unless you like sparring for its own
> sake, what you want as well.
You are not the champion of sensibility for this forum, my friend, so stop
assuming you know what's best for everyone. You are not our father figure.
You are not the leader of anything except your opinion, and the views of the
political party you follow. If you wish to characterize me as a fighter, so
be it. Now I know where I stand with you.
I've learned so far that once Larry has made his mind up about something,
there's no sense arguing. I realize I've said I won't give you an inch, but
you do the same without announcing it. I feel that you, along with Scott,
are perhaps the most quarrelsome people on this forum. If anything, I feel
YOU argue for the sake of argument and you pigeon-hole people. You have
proved to be unrelenting in "catching" people saying something "wrong" in
your opinion. Perhaps you should wonder whether you add or take away from
the identity and individuality of this forum?
> If you respond to this append the way I fear you might
What's to fear, my friend? Do you actually fear me or is this more of your
passive-aggressive behavior at work?
> and I don't respond
> in turn, be sure that the following comment preapplies: "Same old, same old
> DJ" because I'll save the readership and am NOT going to respond to
> provocation, this time.
And that was not meant as a provocation I suppose? By all means, keep
defending LUGNET from the likes of me, Larry. I hope it's fulfilling for
you. Perhaps this is your only catharsis in an otherwise boring life.
> Surprise me. Don't respond to this post at all, or respond saying I'm right
> about this and you're going to stay on topic instead of questioning motives
> and being difficult. It's an important topic to you and to others. Lets
> have a reasoned discussion of it.
There can be no "reasoned" discussion when dealing with someone whose sole
purpose is to poke holes (not find holes, mind you) in your statements. If
you intend to disagree or prove me wrong (and you've demonstrated such 99%
of the time) better get cracking on your own research. Otherwise, you are
right, and our future discussions may be stuck on our meta-communicational
differences rather than the topic at hand.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
