> What the point has to do with the history of Cuba is that Cuba
> is part of "Central America and the Caribbean" and the history
> of that region might have suffered even more heavy-handedly than
> it did if it weren't for a member of the Church's intervention
> in turning the USA away from a true imperialist course.

What do points 7, 8, and 9 have to do with Cuban history?

(I'm just tweakin'.)

> Also, it's "straitlaced," not "straightlaced." The words have
> different meanings.

> Not according to www.m-w.com. They are listed as variant
> spellings of the same word. In any case, if you're going to
> be critical of spelling, you missed "then", "let's",
> "forgiveness", "afterlife", "card-carrying", "temple-going",
> and of course "Latter-day Saint". But such things seem to me
> a case of attacking the messenger instead of the message,
> something I know you find distasteful.

> Well, I don't care about what some website lists as
> "variants".  "Strait" means narrow, constricted; "straight"
> means without bends.

And "straitlaced" means "straightlaced". Or do you have an authoritative 
citation to establish a difference?

> My complaint was that I couldn't understand Victor. Using
> tools of communications properly is an aid in understanding;
> it wasn't a personal attack on Victor.

Agreed, it's nice to use communication tools (such as spelling) 
properly. But if you were criticized for misspelling or misusing a word 
that you in fact did not misspell or misuse (or perhaps even that you 
did misspell or misuse), I suspect you'd be shouting "ad hominem", and 
rightly so.

The fact remains that Vic's word was perfectly acceptable and 
understandable to everyone, and at least one authoritative source agrees 
with him.

> If he means all Democrats are liberal, then I suggest he discuss
> his problem with President Faust, a registered Democrat.

> Interesting. I did not get that meaning at all from what he
> wrote, nor did it even occur to me. Perhaps Canadians just
> can't understand American political talk...

> Are you saying he's not a Democrat?

No, I'm tweakin' you again, because you so obviously misunderstood what 
he wrote, which was simply, "Can a US citizen be a liberal Democrat and 
a faithful Latter-day Saint?" He neither said nor implied that all 
Democrats were liberal, just as I neither said nor implied that 
President Faust wasn't a Democrat (though now that you mention it, he 
*is* not a Democrat at present, having publicly disclaimed partisan 

> 8.    An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an
> opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's
> attention from what actually happened in history.

> Ah. In other words, Steven's approach was ideological
> *because* he was "demonizing an opponent" with ideological
> tags, while your approach was clearly not ideological, since
> you weren't using your ideological tags to demonize Castro.
> But then, you were arguably demonizing the US. Of course, I
> expect you'd claim the US wasn't your "opponent", so therefore
> it still doesn't fit your definition of "an ideological
> approach". I'm just not sure I accept your definition, I guess.

> Take a valium.

Perhaps you're forgetting which of us is hyperventilating.

> You're reading far more into this than is intended.

I doubt it. You took Steven to task for taking "an ideological 
approach". When I called you on the same thing, you claimed your 
approach wasn't ideological, and defined what you meant. I'm just 
struggling to make sense of your definition and to figure out why 
Steven's argument was ideological, but yours was not.

> If you disagree with my reading of history, then prove me
> wrong, don't attack the messenger. That's the classic mistake
> of an ad hominem argument.

> So when the anti-Mormons say, "Those twisted Mormons get NAKED
> in their temples! And they're POLYTHEISTS, like Hindus! And
> they teach that Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS!", your response
> is to say, "Yup, you're absolutely right, no arguments here"?
> Or do you concede that the messenger's presentation may indeed
> severely color the message?

> This is similar to Steven's technique: use religious
> terminology to demonize one's opponent.

Baloney. Quit playing dumb, Marc. I know you're not a dim bulb. Stop 
pretending that my example above is an attempt to turn this into a 
religious debate. That's plain false. My example is intended to show 
that the method of message delivery colors the message itself, and that 
the "naked facts" are never naked (and are rarely pure facts).

> You can share Steven's sock -- I will not have my testimony
> challenged, directly or indirectly, on the basis of
> nationality or political belief.

Cue the violins. But you have yet to admit that the presentation of the 
"message" is often as crucial as the contents, and that your 
presentation has been very skewed indeed.

> Like it or lump it, but I'm not going to be tactful anymore
> in responding to this kind of "spiritual harrassment."


<tweak> Btw, that's actually two words, viz "Any more". Just helping out 
to use tools of communication properly. </tweak>

Lighten up, Marc. Take a deep breath. It's just a discussion. If you 
really, truly can't see the problems in your argument, and you're 
incapable of understanding my pointing them out to you, then just let it 
go. No need to hurl silly accusations and get all huffy. We're friends, 
remember? That is, unless you don't associate with those imperialistic 
dogs to the south.

Woof, woof.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to