----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Tyranny
> At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their > >lack of > >> repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my > >arguments and > >> opinions are not credible. > >> > >> On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that > >are > >> present in other sources, then I am merely "running with the pack." > >> > >> Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really > >welcome > >> here as credible participants of Brin-L. > > > >What is your preference John? > > My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I > am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently > original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. On this particular issue, I (for some unexplainable reason) expected that you would be a bit more neutral. That you have taken such an adamant and active stand really surprises me. > > Likewise, my preference is that you recognize that my arguments on this > subject are self-evidently original-enough for your charge of "running with > the pack" to have been utterly laughable. And likewise for Michael to > recognize that originality of thought should certainly be no sin, on this > List of all places. > > >But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected > >was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your > >opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not > >that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe > >Homophobe Bigot). > > You again continue to amaze me. > > I have written what, 20? 30? posts on this subject in the last week or so? > How can you *possibly* accuse me of not telling you why I believe the way > I do???? To quote Julia, its "Inconceivable!" That babies are born having expectations? Utter crap John. Sheesh, a baby is happy if the dog licks their face. That there is an unwritten contract for married couples to all by themselves have children in order to provide continuity for the nation. That is a rationalisation after the fact pretending to be somehow reasonable. C'mon John. Give a *real* reason. Tell us how Gay Marriage is a threat to the Union........or to society......or to our freedoms. I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? > > In fact, in responding to numerous requests, I laid out my positions on > this subject area in *substantial detail*, in a post entitled "Federal > Marriage Amendment." Again, how can you POSSIBLY accuse me of not > telling you why I believe that I do. > > I honestly don't know what else I can do for you. > Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. xponent The Pervasive Spread Of Equality Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
