On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 23:07, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 23:40, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > PLEASE, show some prove for your statements. > > > > I'll have to get back to you as I don't have all of my info bookmarked > > and/or easily available. It's hard to provide an URL for a paragraph > > in a book. You can take that statement however you like, but I'd > > prefer you took it as I meant it. > > Brant, > > We of the facts and figures would like for it to be that way, but they > can't win by doing that, since the evidence is not on their side. > Therefore they will not take it like you mean it, and will run away from > the core arguments. > > > > Some URL like that maybe? Not some racists book... > > > > Are you kidding me? How can you apply logic so well when it comes to > > computers but totally fail when it comes to the real world? Are you > > implying that every single individual that has been associated with > > Lott's publisher is by that mere association a racist? > > Brant, he doesn't know who John R Lott is. In fact none of them on the > wrong side of the issue do, and none of them are studied on the > subject. (which is why they are on the wrong side of the issue to begin > with.) He has John R. Lott confused with Senator Trent Lott in the > Congress of the United States, who recently had a run-in with the black > caucus over a poorly worded statement at a party, and was subsequently > dubbed a racist. John R. Lott has never had any such similar > circumstances even remotely associated with him. You see, there's not a > clue to be found here. > > If there was, and if they were educated enough, they would realize that > Lott was an example set as a trap for them; as was Tammy Bruce. Both > traps worked out excellently, btw. In the case of John R. Lott, he is a > former leftist that set out to prove that firearms were a danger to the > populace. His intent was to find facts, figures and statistics that > would finally, once and for all, put to the sword the idea of the right > to own firearms and the relevance of that to survival and self defense. > Instead, he found by examination of the actual data that the opposite > was true: the Bill of Rights was vindicated by the data, as were the > guns rights advocates. What the guns rights advocates had been saying > all along was right. And that is what he discovered. Being an honest > man, he changed his stance and printed the truth. So their ideology is > damned by one of their own. > > Now he stands accused by the ignorant as a racist, by those who have > absolutely no idea what they are talking about or even *who* they are > supposed to be talking about. I fully expected them to fall into the > trap of accusing John of being a right winger; the racist stuff was > merely an extra bonus. > > > > The reason why these dogs get outlawed here is exactly the same as why guns > > > are restricted: _look_ at them. I don't want those fucked up people who own a > > > Pit Bull have one. As I don't want those brain-dead alcoholic gun-crazy > > > redneck to have one. > > > > You totally missed the point. I apologize for not making it clearer. > > No need to apologize, the point is being danced around because your > demonstration of the failure of their reasoning is close at hand. To me > it looks to be merely a delaying tactic on their part. > > > > > The point was--you don't mess with a Pit Bull because it's obvious the > > dog is quite capable of hurting you if you try to hurt it. It is the > > same with humans. You don't want to mess with a human that is > > obviously capable of hurting you if you try to hurt them. My > > description of criminals being cowards, but not stupid, reflects that > > fact. > > > > When given the choice between attacking a little old lady with a > > thousand dollars in her purse and a very large football player with a > > thousand dollars in his pocket which do you think would be the more > > likely target? > > > > What if you now gave that old lady a gun, taught her how to use it, > > and informed that same attacker that she had a gun and knew how to use > > it? Now which one would be the more likely target? I think, and I'm > > sure you'll disagree, but I think that this is coming very close to a > > lose-lose situation for our attacker. > > > > Let's sweeten the deal. The old lady has $10,000. Still not looking > > good for the attacker. > > Excellent essay. > > > > Only a complete idiot wouldn't get what I'm saying at this point. > > Very good point. > > > > Watch too much TV lately? > > > > Wow. What did that have to do with anything I said? > > > b. > > > > > Was a delaying tactic. Throwing you off the trail. > > > > > -- > > Brant Fitzsimmons > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. > > Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being > > self-evident." > > -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) > > Kudos to you. :) > Most Execellant > > --LX
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
