You treat some of these online discussions as if they were parliamentary committee meetings or court-based trials where each and every point must be addressed in comprehensive detail. It isn't. Frankly, if I was to debate each and every point my posts would be twice as long as yours and we really don't want to do that do we?
You really don't like people challenging your thought processes or your belief set. I'm not going to debate you point by point. I am debating your ultra-pessimism and the way you view the world. It is a legitimate process and argument. You don't set the rules for debate or discussion simply by writing large screeds of text. I would oppose you in fine detail in much the same way I do in broad strokes. I believe in hope. I believe in faith. The times we face are indeed challenging and no more so than for the USA. They will not be defeated by politics and policies - good tools though they may be. They will be defeated by people standing up together with one word on their lips - HOPE. Come and join the solution bob. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Calco Sent: Sunday, 22 February 2009 9:06 AM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Land of the Free > And the next method of the CT is to attack a person's beliefs etc. How > lame. > The point (if you care to follow it) is that you DON'T address my > issues but > rather restate your opinion in yet another long-winded and repetitive > treatise. Put simply I believe your approach is one to find the most > convoluted and atypical approach you can find. I don't believe you are > a CT. > The very fact you can spell and construct an argument dispels that BUT > you > do display some of the traits and one of the biggest is an absolute > belief > in your own arguments despite the fact they represent a minority view. > > And your attacks on my Christianity are despicable. We can debate, we > can > argue and we can (and probably will, disagree). But leave that kind of > mindless judgmental behavior out if it. It degrades you personally and > sullies your argument. It certainly lowers your respect. Geoff: You were the first to question my Christianity, in broad strokes, then you went after my mental health. I don't like going there in a tit-for-tat in general, and I regret it, but I was not dishonest in my opinion about either your Christian faith or your psychology, since you raised the issues and made them such a recurring theme of your "responses". You are the one trying to hoist the "CT" label on me---which now you claim not to believe. Your paragraph above is at war with itself. I haven't to my knowledge ignored or left unaddressed a single point of yours, while you have preferred to lecture me about things that have no bearing on the topic (like whatever you think you understand about psychology, public opinion and the definition of conspiracy theorist) instead of dig into the information I have provided. If my thought process seems convoluted or desultory this is because you've lazily copped out of any attempt to understand my thought process. Or go ahead, dazzle me, show me just how well you understand my point of view? And feel free to tell me which point of yours I failed to address. - Bob [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
