Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:00:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
787 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 1. Scott (and you, I'd imagine) sympathize with the Palestinians.
> 2. The Palestinians are represented by the PLO, and back them 100%.
> 3. The PLO are terrorists.
> 4. Scott sympathizes with supporters of terrorism.
This is a very thinly qualified attack against myself, and obviously more
pointedly against Scott. And I DO take offense that you equate any
questioning of your unbelievably myopic viewpoints as being the equivalent
of siding with terrorists -- when such an assertion couldn't be further from
the truth. Really, it's outrageous. I expect an apology from you as
regards myself. It borders on libel that you should so distort my views in
this electronic print medium -- be very careful, this is not mere
name-calling. You have made a false claim about my views and I can prove
that the claim is false.
In case you haven't noticed, I have specifically and continually opposed
violence of any kind from either side -- AND I have stated such views on
numerous occasions in this forum. And I am not kidding, I expect a public
and uneqiuvocal retraction that I am in any way a PLO or terrorist sympathizer.
I can't believe you would take your nonsense so far as to make bold lies
about my own or anyone else's views.
I believe that persons like yourself, myopic and intractable and whatever
else you may be, are actually part of an international problem and in no way
part of the solution. I wish I had the words to ameliorate whatever it is
that makes you so. Do try to see past your own so obviously limited
political views in the future, please. Do also try to make substantive
statements about the subject under discussion in the future. The personal
attacks, the lies, do nothing to bolster your extent and limited arguments
so far.
As to the ad hominem attacks in this forum and on this very subject -- it
has been yourself, among others, who have started such attacks first. That
some of the rest of us should note it and retaliate seems to me only
fitting. Frankly, I am sick of it. I will torch this forum before I will
allow you and others to reduce hopefully meaningful discussions and possibly
debates to mere name-calling and attacks on a person's reputation. And while
I do not claim any kind of moral highground, I do claim possession of the
simple ability to argue more to the subject matter at hand and generally
avoid ad hominem attacks. I just thought you might like to see what it felt
like. You are worthy of attacking, because you have done so yourself AND first.
And that's it, you can have whatever last word pleases you -- it's not worth
arguing with someone who fails to show, by all available evidence, that he
knows how to argue anything meaningfully. In replying, perhaps you might
address the pointlessness of ad hominem attacks. And if not that, maybe your
last words as regards me could be a retraction of your false claim...?
-- Hop-Frog
P.S. And because I think it's possible that you actually know no better, a
few definitions:
fatuous (fàch´¡-es) adjective
-- Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish.
libel (lì´bel) Law. noun
-- a. A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs
or pictures that maliciously damages a person's reputation. b. The act or an
instance of presenting such a statement to the public.
unequivocal (ùn´î-kwîv´e-kel) adjective
-- Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Could you clarify what you mean by "I will torch this forum" ? That's a rather worrisome remark. As I said before this is a wasted breath exercise. Surely this will get me another (oh so useful) *sigh* from Scott, but in this case it is *all* (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Where? and obviously more (...) Then refute it and move on. Really, it's outrageous. I expect an apology from you as (...) Then just say it. I said I would imagine you to be one. Never said you were, and now you have set the record straight. (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Either side, or just one? betrays a leaning for one side or the (...) That's news to me. The US media isn't "pro-Israel", that's for sure. (...) 1. Scott (and you, I'd imagine) sympathize with the Palestinians. 2. The Palestinians are (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
