> > [Platt] > > Read the BBC bias report and weep. > > > > [Arlo] > > Again, there is nothing in the passage from the BBC and the Wikipedia > > entry that are at odds. If you can find a discrepency, please let me > > know.
[Platt] Read about BBC bias in the report initiated by the BBC itself. Got to give them credit for investigating and admitting their prejudice. The BBC passage and the Wikipedia entry are completely at odds both in meaning and tone. > > [Platt] > > Further, if anyone has been pushing the value of myths, it's been you. > > > > [Arlo] > > I argue for the value of myth as metaphor, not the value of ONE myth to > > determine how we should live. What then is your program for "How we should live?" I'm sure you have one. > > [Platt] > > As for the Hippies, we know what Pirsig said about their misguided > > frivolities. > > > > [Arlo] > > Yes. They were "the moral movement". No. Moral but misguided. "Just as the intellectual revolution undermined social patterns, the Hippies undermined both static and intellectual patterns." (Lila, 24). > > [Platt] > > But you don't point out how what I say is deceptive and distortive. You > > just blame your disagreement with what I say on Limabaugh and talk radio, > > implying that I'm a mind-numbed robot with nary a brain in his head. > > Nothing personal, mind you. Yeah, right. > > > > [Arlo] > > I point it out every time, and in context. This revisionism is just part > > of parcel of the proof of that, Platt. As usual, an unsupported claim, proving my point. > > [Platt] > > Read your post again. You quoted at length about how liberalism was the > > party of individualism and freedom. > > > > [Arlo] > > I said, "This usurption of words leads us to forget that it was > > liberalism that gave us the liberty we enjoy today." Can you tell me > > where in that I say anything about a "party"? > > > > Again, this is just another example of your need to distort rather > > than address dialogue honestly. You pick up on one word to distort the meaning of the whole. Again, you prove my point. > > [Platt] > > See? A personal insult -- "Pee-Wee manuever" -- associating me with a > > despicable character. > > > > [Arlo] > > As I described previously, and can be seen by perusing the archives, any > > time you are called on anything, you end your reply with calling the > > other person exactly what they called you. If someone says you are > > deceptive, you claim the other person is deceptive. I call this > > rhetorical maneuver the Pee-Wee in homage to his "I know what you are, > > but what am I?" defense when he was called anything. Take it personally > > if you wish, I really don't care. I know you don't care about insulting others you disagree with. As for using the same terms to describe another, since when do you reserve certain words for your exclusive use? I call that arrogance of the first order. > > [Platt] > > You keep threatening to "hang up" on me, but never do. Promises, > > promises. > > > > [Arlo] > > I've backed out of several threads with you, Platt. As I intend to do now > > with this one. One can only hope. Platt moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
