[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipped some
A personal attack is bad not because it is false or true but because it seeks to confuse the arguement with the person making the arguement.
Can we add this to our etiquette guidelines? The reasoning behind the rule.
Sonja :o)
GCU: No attack
Folks,
Gautam: Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
busy drowning innocent young women to think
about what he was saying - something like that.
Reggie: Personal attacks make for good arguements since when?
Maybe you've been working such long hours that
In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God knows what really happened.
Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't there. Stop talking like
you were.
Tom Beck
www.mercerjewishsingles.org
I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God knows what really happened.
Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't
there. Stop talking like
you were.
Tom Beck
Tom, I know what the _most favorable interpretation of
Incidentally, Tom, when do you ever follow that rule?
Or does it only apply to liberals? Speaking about
Republicans when you have no knowledge, that's not
exactly a problem for you, is it?
Not sure I can recall the last time I accused anyone of any political stripe
of murder.
Tom Beck
In a message dated 2/1/2004 10:46:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I'll say it's not relevant to what sort of a person
he is when Mary Jo asks me to, and not before. That
seems fair. It's more of a chance than he gave her.
It just isn't very germaine to the arguement at
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war
was cooked up in Texas for corrupt oil reasons.
Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would,
again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but
morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
busy
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personal attacks make for good arguements since
when? Maybe you've been
working such long hours that you've forgotten that
one of the principles of
this list is to attack the argument, not the person
who made it. Tell us
why Ted Kennedy's
At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war
was cooked up in Texas for corrupt oil reasons.
Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would,
again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but
morally. Teddy was
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
He's not alone. Ted
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators.
Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are
unlikely to have been influenced by access to the
world economy. And if that had really been enough,
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators.
Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are
unlikely to have been influenced by access to the
world economy. And if that had really been enough,
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Julia wrote:
(and ask me about what I know about the aftermath of Gettysburg any time
you like)
Consider yourself asked. 8^)
After the battle, there were a lot of men left lying for dead.
A group of Quakers came though with wagons, and checked each man. Those
In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than
such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi
would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
except force is likely to get results from someone
like him.
There have been stories that he also responded to such things as his
There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the
Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because
they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the
simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil
War was that
In a message dated 1/28/2004 9:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Maybe. But since Qaddafi said to Berlusconi I will
do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what
happened in Iraq and I am afraid it seems like
there's a more plausible explanation.
I swear,
In a message dated 1/28/2004 10:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
And of course, all those years of negotiation going back to the Clinton
Administration just happened to break through at the same time that Hussein
was being toppled.And indeed, coincidentally at the
In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than
such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi
would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
except force is likely to get results from
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other
than
such displays of force, what do you think a
Qaddafi
would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_
except
Gautam wrote:
Because, of course, it is personal.
No, it's not. Not on this end anyway.
I supported the invasion, and not for oil money either. Your
insistence that only corruption or malice explains the
actions of the Administration
I may have intoned that there is the possibility that
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:45:58PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I'll give one clear example of Halliburton behaving in an unpatriotic
manner under Clinton. I've seen, from reputable sources, that they
sold nuclear bomb triggers to Hussein, using their French subsidy
to make it technically
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Could you explain what a nuclear bomb trigger consists of? Does this
mean something like
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed neutron generator. It generates
about 10^8 neutrons per second, with energies of 14 Mev in very short
(measured in microseconds) bursts.
Thanks. Sounds pretty obvious that it is for a nuclear
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too
busy drowning innocent young women to think about what
he was saying - something like that.
Ad hominems, straw men. We can also bring up, Cheney and Shrubs Numerous
DWI's or Laura Shrubs
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 08:57 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote:
2) Do you truly
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did he? When did he do that?
-j-
He suggested
In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence
that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to
breakas Saddam
Hussein was being toppled.
Recent op ed piece in the NYT
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush
appointee argued quite explicitly that the thaw with
Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with
initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it
was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He
should
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the
Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 06:14 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recent op ed piece in the NYT
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 08:15 PM 1/28/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence
that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're probably right. I don't think that
this sort of display of force is a great long-term
solution; we shouldn't ever count on such side
benefits.
-j-
Well, why not? One of the major reasons for doing
this was such a side benefit -
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the
Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he
couldn't swim.
Stealing lines from LBJ?
How far the mighty have fallen!
G
xponent
Good One Though Maru
rob
Talent creates, genius steals -
Julia wrote:
At the risk of irritating an awful lot of people --
There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the
Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because
they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the
simplistic
It's all OK for Bushies buddies...
Doing Business With The Enemy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml
(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, Money is
the lifeblood of terrorist operations, he's talking about your money --
and every other
government ties...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:45:49PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
It's all OK for Bushies buddies...
Doing Business With The Enemy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml
___
http://www.mccmedia.com
At 11:45 PM 1/26/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
It's all OK for [President Bush's] buddies...
Two questions for you Doug.
1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been
unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration, how do you explain
your above statement in
2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete
economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya?
John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form of power?
Do you have a read on the effectiveness of them, given the recent Lybian Surprise?
John wrote:
1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been
unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration,
Before we were at war and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop
of a hat by the current administration you mean?
how do you explain your above
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John wrote:
1) Given that the practices described below almost
certainly have been
unchanged since the days of the Clinton
Administration,
Before we were at war and peoples patriotism was
questioned at the drop
of a hat by the current
Howard Dean
accused the President of the United States in a time
of war of high treason.
So which party is questioning people's patriotism again?
Did he? When did he do that?
-j-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we were at war and peoples patriotism was
questioned at the drop
of a hat by the current administration you mean?
So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire
collected speeches of George Bush, would you
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we can infer high treason from the above remarks
but we can't infer
that the Bush administration is playing the
patriotism card unless Bush
uses the word unpatriotic in a speech?
--
Doug
You don't think that claiming the President knew
Gautam wrote:
You don't think that claiming the President knew
something like that in advance was despicable?
Why don't you tell me, Guatam, why the administration has stonewalled the
investigation into the causes of 9/11 and why people _shouldn't_ assume
that someone that's hiding something
At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote:
2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete
economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya?
John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form
of power?
Do you have a read on the
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of
sticking to the argument, you
make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty
is questioned when
they don't toe the Republican line in regards to
9/11.
--
Doug
Because, of course, it is
John wrote:
You cannot plausibly hold both positions. If you hold to the opinions
of your second paragraph, then these activities were just as
reprehensible
under Clinton as under Bush, because it was still the breaking of a law,
even a bad law.
I'm arguing that the way laws are enforced, say
48 matches
Mail list logo
