Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:55:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
707 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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,
Where?
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.
Then refute it and move on.
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.
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.
>
> I can't believe you would take your nonsense so far as to make bold lies
> about my own or anyone else's views.
Never made a bold lie, and the nonsense is coming from you.
>
> 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.
Your perogative.
I wish I had the words to ameliorate whatever it is
> that makes you so.
Perish the thought.
Do try to see past your own so obviously limited
> political views in the future, please.
Are they "so obviously limited", or are they just different than yours? Or does
that mean the same thing?
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.
All I said was that I imagined that you sympathized with the Palestinians. I
didn't even *assert* it, so chill.
>
> 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.
The only ad hominem I asserted was that Scott was an idiot if he: thought that
the US would ever stop supporting Israel, and that the *US* was to blame for 9-
11. Calling him an idiot may have gone overboard, but I certaily believe that
those statements are idiotic.
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
What exactly does *that* mean??
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,
Then get off it.
I do claim possession of the
> simple ability to argue more to the subject matter at hand and generally
> avoid ad hominem attacks.
Generally. I'm still trying to guess which finger you are waving in my general
direction...
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.
Attack all you want. I really couldn't care less what you think about me.
>
> 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...?
Look at that "claim" again. And refute my little thesis if you want.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) I can't remember ever saying that. I may have pondered what Israel would do if USA stopped giving them ~$2500000000.00 per year (...) I can't remember ever saying that the US "was to blame for 9-11". I suggest you retract that statement. Scott (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
