Subject:
|
Re: What is Scott saying now? Was: (Re: Wench as a word)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:47:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
643 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Ed,
>
> Ed Jones wrote:
>
>
> > But if you really want to get a grip on Rudy, then read some of the articles • at
> > this link regarding the NYPD shooting another innocent black man. Not only • did
> > Rudy not show sympathy for the victim's family, but within hours of the
> > incident, he illegally disclosed sealed juvenile court records to try to • defame
> > the victim.
>
>
> Boy, was Rudy the one who fired the gun? Because you are linking him
> directly with police officers, so the police officers are not
> responsible? I guess you liked New York a lot better when it was a
> scumpit, filled with crime and sleaze. I am not advocating anything in
> terms of shooting unarmed people, if there is a injustice, that should
> be tried and charged. This demonization of Rudy because of a few
> incidents is faulty logic at best and name calling at worst, Ed. Why
> don't you move to Downtown Detroit and live around Woodward Avenue if
> you love to live in crime so much.
From the comments above, you clearly could not have bothered reading the news
articles involving the incident and Rudy's defamation of the victim.
Faulty logic on my part? Your first statement is a prime example "Boy, was
Rudy the one who fired the gun? Because you are linking him directly with
police officers, so the police officers are not responsible?"
Rather than deal with the facts presented, you make misstatements. Rather than
debate the articles, you choose to ignore them and again accuse me of faulty
logic and name calling. The faulty logic here seems to be yours: simply shoot
down another person's thoughts/ideas/opinions irregardless of the legal facts
presented, the news articles presented, etc. because it doesn't agree with
yours.
Did I say the police officers were not responsible? No, that's just your way
of changing the subject.
The "demonization of Rudy because of a few incidents" statement displays an
ignorance of the incident and the articles and clearly shows that you have not
read the articles previously linked.
And, as a matter of fact, I liked NYC alot better prior to Rudy's reign of
terror. But, where did you form the opinion that prior to RUDY, NYC was a
"scumpit, filled with crime and sleaze"? On what criteria are you basing that
asumption? Months ago I had a similar debate with LP who, once presented with
the statistics of crime in big cities (NYC is one of the safest), withdrew his
somewhat similar opinion.
Have you ever even been to NYC? Or do you base your opinion on heresay?
Or is it simply your way of avoiding having to justify your opinions?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What is Scott saying now? Was: (Re: Wench as a word)
|
| Ed, Well, I did happen to read the articles, BTW. (...) I did read them, thank you, and I still say, if Rudy did something wrong, have it investigated. Which I have said before about Trafficant, etc. (...) Well, your statements like "Rudy's reign of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
74 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
|
|
|
|
