-Caveat Lector-
YnrChyldzWyld wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Hawk wrote:
> >> Still voicing OPINION without FACTS, are we?
> >
> >Read the words, June... I believe them to be factual.... Documents from the era
>indicate
> >that such was the situation, or that those who were living at the time believed it
>to be
> >so....
>
> Documents which you fail to give titles for, let alone quote...
This will give you something to start on: "Time On the Cross" by Fogel and
Engerman..... "A
Defense of Virginia and the South" by Dabney. When you finish those, contact me and
I'll
send you some more.
> >> As a matter of FACT, Unitarianism is NOT prevalant here in the
> >> Northeast...Unitarianism isn't even Christianity...
> >
> >I have no idea what is prevalant in the northeast now...
>
> The same religions that have ALWAYS been prevalent...
Probably so... That doesn't alter the fact that Unitarianism has had an influence on
them.
> >If I were to say that the opinions of Marx influenced the northeast, or
> >that Napoleon's tactics influenced the Confederacy, it would not be the
> >same as saying the North was Communist and the South was French. OK?
>
> Which means you admit that your statement is meaninless drivel...
Which means that you cannot decifer between fact and fiction...and appear to be
incapable of
following a line of connected thoughts... I think I'm wasting my time.
> >You may be aware of any number of facts of which I am unaware...
>
> Then why do you continue to post your PERSONAL OPINION and PREJUDICES as if they were
> FACTS?
Hey, lady? The fact that you may know your mother's name (or maybe even your father's
name), and I have not been exposed to that information, has nothing whatsoever to do
with
whether or not what I say is "fact" or "opinion" unless I am commenting on your
ancestors.
> Jerry praises you for your 'documentation', but yet I've never seen you
> provide one iota of documentation...and in fact your private opinions
> posted as 'fact' have been roundly refuted by actual facts time and time
> again...
Well, I just gave you some... And which "private opinions" are you speaking of that
have been
roundly refuted by actual facts... Don't bother with "all of them," just give me a few.
> >If so, say what's on your mind.
>
> I already have, but I'll repeat it: You are an idiot who posts his personal opinion
>and
> prejudices as if they were a matter of fact,
Well, you're a super nice lady who is just way too sharp for me to pull that off on
you, I
suppose... But the challenge is still open... You provide one such "personal opinion or
prejudice" that has been refuted by fact. When you do, I will confess that you are
correct.
> without providing a shred of documentation; and when you're obvious fallacies are
> pointed out by documented facts,
(by the way, it should be "your") .... I haven't seen the documented facts which point
out my
fallacies... Again, just summarize two or three for me.
> you turn around and start calling those who provide FACTS to counter your prejudices
>any
> variety of names.
Oh? I don't think that is true, although memory may have failed me. Who, or when,
specifically, did I call anyone who provided a fact to counter a prejudice any kind of
name?? Maybe I owe them an apology... provide the info.
> >But if you continue with your beligerant posts, I am going to start
> >responding in kind...
>
> If DOCUMENTED FACTS are considered 'beligerant' by you, so be it...
What DOCUMENTED FACT have you provided, that contradicted what I have said?
> >and I guarantee you, I am meaner than you are,
>
> Don't bet on it...
Don't have to.
> >So how 'bout you just lighten up a little bit, and be respectful...
>
> Again, if pointing out that you are posting personal opinion and
> prejudice as if they were 'facts' is considered 'disrespectful',
Well, I sort of think that calling someone a liar, without proof of their lying, or
calling
someone an "idiot" without documentation of that charge, might be considered
disrepectful...
It is where I live, anyway. Maybe its different in your neck of the woods.
> so be it...I will NOT cease to point out your obvious errors...
I don't know of the first one you've pointed out yet.
> I personally feel your agenda is to disrupt this list in any manner that
> you can, and that you're just looking for an excuse to start up again.
You keep challenging me... I assure you that I don't personally care to have
discussions with
you, so accusing me of wanting to be disruptive is silly. If you don't believe that,
give it
a try. Drop the discussion with me, and I assure you I'll leave you alone.
> I will go on record as stating that I for one do NOT welcome you back.
Gee, I was hoping you were happy about it. Should my feelings be hurt?
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
