response 51 of 166:

Aug 9 02:14 UTC 2003

Sheesh.  From Israel to the Freemasons... why I am bothering to argue with
this twit?

response 53 of 166:

Aug 9 12:24 UTC 2003

Dan, if you really want to argue you're going to have to keep on target,
instead of posting long asides of questionable relevancy.  Imagine trying that
in a face-to-face argument, and you'll see my point.

response 55 of 166:

Aug 9 13:34 UTC 2003

(Thanks for the correction, Russ. I knew it was wrong as I typed it but
was too tired to look it up and go back and correct it.)

Really, Dan, it's only ok for others (oval herself in #6, EArnal in #40)
to cut & paste lengthy texts. Seems as if the standard isn't the length
of an article but if said article is anti-Israel.

Scott really doesn't have much to say. His purpose here is to be a heckler.
He seems to enjoy that. Since I've tended to mock his bait, it seems as
if you'll be his new target. So don't expect him to respond to rational
arguments. Look for him to key in on one thing and use it as a distraction
to divert attention from the rest of what you said.

Note also his latest odious obfuscation, as if Israeli "extremists" who build
illegal settlments can be compared to Arab extremists who blow up buses
packed with civilians and pizzerias and ice-cream parlors filled with families
with children, or to Arab snipers who intentionally shoot babies sleeping in
their cribs, and to the murderers of mothers as they read bed-time stories
to their children and who shoot the children as the hide under the covers.

The PA refuses to arrest and disarm these butchers, but Scott doesn't see a
problem with that. The problem is that Israel doesn't throw the book at a
bunch of peaceful people who put up tents as a form of political protest
against the government's policies. That, he asserts, shows how beholden the
Israeli government is to this group....

response 59 of 166:

Aug 9 23:45 UTC 2003

Funny, but for someone who "doesn't bother with Leeron", it's odd
that your last 3 responses have been about me.

You aren't "arguing". You are heckling. Precisely because you can't
address the substance of the issues. Even people who disagree with
my political outlook have commented on this in the past.

If you want to address the substance of what Dan (or I) said, here's
another opportunity to do so.  We'll see what road you choose to take.

response 61 of 166:

Aug 10 04:06 UTC 2003

I've directly pointed out where we have differences of opinion, perhaps you
didn't notice that?

response 63 of 166:

Aug 10 20:40 UTC 2003

Go back and read the item again, Dan.  I made several response explicitly
disagreeing with your position, among other things.

response 65 of 166:

Aug 11 16:06 UTC 2003

Really?  How exactly does a phrase starting with "I just don't agree, Dan."
and following with my opinion NOT constitute discussion?

response 67 of 166:

Aug 11 18:18 UTC 2003

Wow.  And all this time Leeron's been claiming that I'm obsessed with him,
and now we foind out the opposite is true.

response 69 of 166:

Aug 11 21:08 UTC 2003

Well, I don't view these discussions as an Apocalyptic battle between the
forces of good and evil.  After butting heads with Leeron for a number of
Agoras I'm really not interested in spending a whole lot of time on the
subject, frankly.  Does that mean that my opinion is somehow flawed?  Or just
that we disagree not only on whose side has the bloodiest hands, but whether
participation in a short-lived item on an antique BBS requires a specific
level of discourse?

response 71 of 166:

Aug 12 03:28 UTC 2003

Dan, if you think this is bad, you should look at Scott's record in those
other Agoras. But don't take it too seriously, just keep in mind that this
is Scott's way to have "fun". At this point it's hard to even say what
Scott truly believes -- he heckles for his own perverted personal enjoyment.

Which may explain why he didn't bother responding to gelinas and other.
That would entail a level of discussion beyond Scott's abilities or desire.

Indeed. Strange that first Scott contended that he was discussing the issues
yet now he says he's not that interested and lacks the time?  Yet he has
plenty of time for heckling and meta-discussion?

I'm readying the pop-corn in anticipation of Scott's next pot shot.
Let's just ignore them and continue the discussion.
If he wants he'll chime in with discussion. If not, then not.

response 73 of 166:

Aug 12 14:16 UTC 2003

Oh, I'd agree that Dan might find these items from past Agoras to be
enlightening - especially since some of the arguments don't quite match the
way Leeron likes to describe them now.

However, I'm not Leeron, and therefore I'm not going to assign several hours
of homework to Dan.