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: 
856 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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
    

Custom Search

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