Uncool is ignoring me too. I didn't even ask a tough question. I
just asked uncool's age out of curiousity to see if it gives me any
insight as to how much life experience we are dealing with.
It doesn't get much easier than "How old are you?", yet I can't get an
answer.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
> I have tried to explain repeatedly and you just keep ignoring.
> All I can do at this time is repeat my previous explanation:
> "Just because prejudice prevented some previous groups of
> minorities from exercising their rights does not mean that
> prejudice is responsible for the status of all things that do not
> have rights."
>
> So obviously NO! I did NOT "mean to say that logicly the cause of
> prejudice is things lacking rights". But that IS another fine
> example of your inversions.
>
> I have never seen replies with such a creative knack for
> misunderstanding (disunderstanding) such as yours. In that sense,
> there is no way I can bring something as original as your replies
> to the table.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> If my logic is inverted, then am I to understand you mean to say
> that logicly the cause of prejudice is things lacking rights? Or
> beter yet, just explain yourself. What was inverted, turn my
> logic
> in the right direction and tell me just what it does mean. You
> stand
> on easy ground as you never bother to show any cards by giving
> your
> stance on things you comment mark. All you do is pick at what I
> say.
> Given that I am now on moderation, I wont waste Terry's time
> continueing with our line of talk untill you bring something
> original to the table. If not, we can mutualy drop it.
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uncool,
> >
> > The logic of your post is inverted. Just because prejudice
> > prevented some previous groups of minorities from exercising
> > their rights does not mean that prejudice is responsible for
> the
> > status of all things that do not have rights.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
