On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:25:43 -0400, ZombyWoof <Zomby-Woof@Zappa.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:30:25 -0700, Codeee01@hotmail.com wrote
>something wonderfully witty:
> 
> 
>No, I'm saying Juba isn't what he would like to portray himself as.
>He isn't as "cool" and as open-mind",i.e. liberal as sometimes he
>likes to portray.  He worships the almighty dollar and would sell his
>soul for it in a heartbeat.



It's trite, over-used, and often insincere, but truly I had to "LOL"
when I read that statement from you, of all people!

He has never judged anyone by their "intrinsic worth" or ability
to earn money, bragged about his earning ability, or berated anyone
who was down on their luck, as "deserving it"...then accusing them
of living off of the "public teat".  (LC doesn't count).


 
>Actually one of the oldest tricks in the books is what you & your
>cohorts have been doing here for ages.  That is using the cover of
>something popular "Liberalism"/ "PC" to paint others as something or
>call names.


I see nothing resembling "calling names" other than what is quoted
verbatim within the link provided to your own statements on
homosexuality etc.   That was what MY post was directed at in
particular.


>What it is that you truly don't like is "freedom of speech" or other
>"Ideas" and are trying to squelch it at every opportunity that you get
>under the guise of Political Correctness.  Yeah it flies right now
>with those that can't see through it, but not everyone has blinders on
>either.

That mirror is going to grow tired of saying "You're the fairest in
the land" one day soon.  Until then, I'll thank you not to gaze into
it and accuse others of your very own actions and prejudices.


It's "free speech" when you're blatantly name calling, but not when
someone quotes you.  It appears that RuAda is not the only one
making up rules as she goes along this week.


>At no time have you ever heard me advocate any type of violence
>against any group of people, discrimination in work, housing, or
>social services nor can you provide any proof of it.  Any feeble
>attempt to come with some type of twist or information won't fly
>because I have never done so.
>
>I am entitled like every other American citizen to have opinions on
>certain topics, especially those that are under discursion at the
>national level.

I'm all FOR "discursion" on the national level, your spelling error
actually fits the activity which these topics generally decay into.
In fact, a SANE discussion of national interests would be welcome!

I haven't the time or interest to google your
many statements about discrimination, if they still exist.
The only one accused of an obsession with violence is your new buddy
Morton.  Let us not get too dramatic, Camille.  At the same time, do
not insult all of us by claiming not to have seen his often daily,
and repeated chattering for twenty years
about "eating" a bullet, and variations on the
theme!



For example:  This was simply "about" your refuting that you
are a homophobe, based upon your own words.  If you feel
that your own words don't indicate what I feel they do,
this certainly would be the time to dredge them up
and dispute them.
Did you?  No, instead we see the very thing you're accusing ME of,
demonstrated in this paragraph.
(It IS nice to know what my "biggest problem" is however.and free
of charge!


THIS bit is absolutely priceless!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>Your biggest problem is you don't have the ability to
>attack my stances on issues so you are left attacking me.  It truly
>isn't my fault that your so weak in both your convictions and
>abilities that the only recourse open to you is ad hominem attacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

Rather than continue along those lines, you've taken
the tack of telling me "my biggest problem".  Some might
consider that to BE an ad hominem attack.


This is what you've come up with, rather than defend the words
in the post, which would "prove" more than attempting to
analyze ME.

When faced with an issue, rather than
discuss it, present your side, and leave it at that - you launch into
a "superior" attitude.  This attempt to show the other person as
inferior neither furthers your point, or lessens the others'
credibility.


A. (as you see it) My "inability to attack your stances on issues,
so I am left attacking you".

Nicely demonstrated BY you, I might add.

B.  My "convictions and abilities being so weak"that I am"forced to ad
hominem attacks."

I believe you just demonstrated that one quite ably as well.
Many thanks for the object lesson complete with examples of your own
"work".



Your biggest problem is you don't have the ability to
>attack my stances on issues so you are left attacking me.  It truly
>isn't my fault that your so weak in both your convictions and
>abilities that the only recourse open to you is ad hominem attacks.


It was just so nice, I had to repeat it twice!


Besides, it gives you more time to consider a retort to the homophobic
remarks which are contained within the link..which could have saved
all of this long, long, long page  of off topic BS.


codeee

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]