To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 24529
24528  |  24530
Subject: 
Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:37:25 GMT
Viewed: 
3512 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 
> > > > > That's pure ad hominem reasoning,
> > > > 
> > > > Why?
> > > 
> > > Because you are, in the post-at-hand, dismissing causes solely because Moore
> > > supports them.
> > 
> > No I'm not. Reread what you cited. "tends to suggest" is hardly Summarily
> > Dismissed. Further, being wrong about an issue or cause is not the same as
> > dismissing the issue or cause. I dismiss his opinions about issues (for valid
> > cause since he's usually wrong), not the issues.
> 
> Let's review:
> 
> In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative
> descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is
> "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his
> work is entirely without merit."  Those are mighty big assertions to make
> without giving even a mote of corroborating evidence.

The evidence has been presented here in the past and I'm not inclined to dig it
up again.

> Given your history in this forum of taking a decidely and vehemently
> pro-corporate bent,

Cites please? I'm not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless
you're anti-capitalist and don't see the distinction between corporatism and
capitalism.

> Further, you assert that Moore's only intention in naming his film was to "rip
> off" Bradbury.  How the heck do you know that?

He said it was his intention (about the name), although not in so many words.

> **snip of a lot of other stuff that came across as trying to tempt me into an
> exchange of "oh, yeah?" "yeah," which naturally is of no interest to the
> thoughtful debater**

Me too.

> Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
 
(...) Because the willful choice not to support your argument is indistinguishable from forfeiting the argument, I accept this as your forfeiture. If it is not your intent to forfeit, then I invite you to support your argument, as you have demanded (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
 
(...) Let's review: In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

106 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR