|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 166 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 60 of 166:
| 
Aug 10 00:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
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?
|
cross
|
|
response 62 of 166:
|
Aug 10 20:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 64 of 166:
|
Aug 11 14:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
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?
|
lk
|
|
response 66 of 166:
|
Aug 11 17:01 UTC 2003 |
I recommend people re-read starting at #20 (Scott's first "response").
As I noted in #55:
> 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.
In Dan's case, it was the straw man that Dan is making a racist argument.
The rest of what Dan said fell on deaf ears, just as Scott didn't even
bother to address Eric's points (#21) or Joe's questions (#30).
One can also measure the amount of Scott's "discussion" by the length of his
responses. I'm not saying that one need write a dissertation for each
response, but can 2 and 3-line entries really make for an adequate discussion
of such a complex subject -- especially if half of it is about
meta-discussion? And especially in response to a screenful or two that Dan
or others entered?
Responding to what Dan, Eric and Joe (or even I) said would be discussion.
Two-line straw men outbursts is heckling.
I'd almost think that Scott isn't aware of what he's doing, but he previously
admitted getting joy out of harassing people with strongly stated opinions.
Scott also gets the hypocrisy award for telling Grex how he ignores me after
talking about me in his previous 3 responses, but he has to share it with
Oval. She was critical of Dan for entering a lengthy (~80 line) cut & paste
text (to support what he was saying in the first half of his response) and
in #54 oval lambastes him for doing so, saying:
Oval> the point you'll see will be the way the person is looking at you like
> you're insane.
So how are we supposed to look at oval, who posted a much longer (218 line)
spam-propaganda cut-and-paste job in response #6?
Sadly, Oval is more interested in silencing opposition than in discussion.
Recall that she exposed her own racist and hatist thought patterns, attempting
to silence me by threatening that because of me (my arguments on Grex) she's
likely to dislike all Jews.
If that weren't bad enough, I think she followed this up by saying that
anti-Semitism isn't really a problem.
|
scott
|
|
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 68 of 166:
|
Aug 11 20:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
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?
|
cross
|
|
response 70 of 166:
|
Aug 12 00:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
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.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 72 of 166:
|
Aug 12 06:27 UTC 2003 |
If anyone'd like a good overview of Israel's terroristic land-grab wall, watch
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/IsraelsWall.mov. It's what's
making even the pro-Zionist US Government upset.
|
scott
|
|
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.
|
lk
|
|
response 74 of 166:
|
Aug 12 15:17 UTC 2003 |
It's not a question of assigning "homework". It's a question of being able
to support what you say by citing at least one example.
Dan, you might find Agora40 Item 20, from response 251 onward, particularly
fascinating. Not just because of Scott's antics but for the content.
Now, back to discussion.
Today there were two suicide bombings in Israel (see item 27).
Both in areas without a security wall.
11:05 Terror attacks show importance of fence, which doesn`t surround
Rosh Ha`ayin or Ariel
|
mary
|
|
response 75 of 166:
|
Aug 12 15:23 UTC 2003 |
I wish the three of you would stand on a line, unzip your pants,
and empty your bladders. Then we would declare a winner and move
on.
Do you guys have any idea how silly you look here?
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 166:
|
Aug 12 17:29 UTC 2003 |
That's no longer the issue, Mary. ;) ;) ;)
|
cross
|
|
response 77 of 166:
|
Aug 12 17:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 78 of 166:
|
Aug 12 19:11 UTC 2003 |
Seriously, Dan, check out Agora40, Item 20, Respones 251+
There is a lot of good data there.
Today there were two suicide bombings in Israel (see item 27).
Both in areas without a security wall.
11:05 Terror attacks show importance of fence, which doesn`t surround
Rosh Ha`ayin or Ariel
|
polytarp
|
|
response 79 of 166:
|
Aug 12 22:03 UTC 2003 |
I like scott more than I like lk, because scott doesn't usually advocate
genocide.
|
cross
|
|
response 80 of 166:
|
Aug 13 15:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 81 of 166:
|
Aug 14 02:26 UTC 2003 |
I like scott and polytarp the same.
They are so much alike.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 82 of 166:
|
Aug 14 10:22 UTC 2003 |
You're the one trying to trick people into thinking Israel's fortified wall
is a fence, lk: And, you know what, it's that postulate's what's the fence.
We all know that's Israel's not "adminstrating", as I'm sure your postulate's:
They're KILLING, how about that lk, dead little children, dead because you'd
rather kill children than have children be killed, because, lk, you're a
deranged mind: Something -- you know -- what's all mixed up. And don't
forget, man, you're a scum-ball.
|
lk
|
|
response 83 of 166:
|
Aug 14 17:51 UTC 2003 |
What's all mixed up is your response, but thanks anyhow.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 84 of 166:
|
Aug 16 15:52 UTC 2003 |
You're the one who kills Christian children.
|