Jeroen wrote:
> At 05:53 15-8-01 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
>
> > > That's crap, Gautum. Provide links to websites that defend the US on
this
> > > matter, and I'll go over them with the same comb I use for sites that
> > > criticize the US.
> >
> >Must be a pretty gap-toothed comb. I'm seeing the same thing as Gautam
from
> >where I'm sitting, and I'm normally inclined to disagree with him.
>
>
> At 21:49 15-8-01 -0400, Bob Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >Seems to me you go over the anti-US web sites with a magnet not a comb.
If it
> >is there you stick to it.
>
> My first thought was "I'm not even going to dignify that nonsense with a
> response".
>
> My second thought was "hm, on second thought..."
>
> You see, I have gotten similar ideas about a few people on this list:
every
> site that supports their views is considered "credible" without as much as
> a hint of any possible doubt. Yet every site that is quoted that disagrees
> with you (plural) is immediately labeled "not credible", even after it is
> pointed out that they *are* credible.
>
> It often seems that these people can't accept anything that disagrees with
> their views.
>
> And then you say *I* use a "gap-toothed comb", or "a magnet not a comb".
> Sheesh.
Yet when specific objections are raised about the quality of information you
provide (Gautam's objections to the Rossiter fellow's credentials, for
instance), you handwave them away. Sheesh yourself, sir. I'll not waste my
time reading your silliness on this or any other issue for a while,
methinks.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
