XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.atheism
From: nobody@dizum.com
On Nov 14, 8:15 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" wrote:
> Guillaume Ier de Normandie, ye fly-covered paraquito, ye are a sort of
> man whose visage does cream and mantle like a standing pond, ye
drooled:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Emerson Wainwright, ye demonic rude despiser of good manners, a
> >> ruffian that will swear, drink, dance, revel the night, rob, murder
> >> and commit the oldest of sins in the newest kind of ways, ye
> >> radiated:
>
> >>>> Emerson Wainwright, ye mammering whoreson jackanapes, if thou art
> >>>> changed to aught, tis to an ass, ye pressed:
>
> >>>> "Emerson Wainwright" wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:a2487f72-d46f-488d-8d06-
52902f8e5126@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com
>
> >>>>> So, my statement was correc
>
> >>>> Given what should be common knowledge about the spread of
HIV/AIDS
> >>>> in African populations alone, the original statement that
> >>>> heterosexuals and not homosexuals are the major carrier group is
> >>>> likely to be prima facie correct. However you need to pull your
> >>>> socks up when arguing your point. There are people in auk who
will
> >>>> not let you get away with mangling verifiable scientific
> >>>> information into opinionated bullshit, no matter how right you
> >>>> are; me being one of them.
>
> >>>> HTH
>
> >>> Normally I answer fully. In this case, however, I was confronted
> >>> with a brief and rather nasty "Do you have a reputable reference
> >>> for that bullshit?", by you.
>
> >> You deserved to be confronted. Sloppiness of argument is not
> >> acceptable if you want to be taken seriously.
>
> >> You do want to be taken seriously, yes?
>
> >> As it is, your sloppy approach to defending your position against
> >> bigotry only reinforces the bigotry by making you look mentally
lazy
> >> at best
>
> > I hardly think
>
> True.
>
> > that most people would judge a person based on one
> > post. If you feel you want to do that, feel free.
>
> I'll take that as an admission that you don't know what communal
> reinforcement is.
>
> > As to the matter at hand: You weren't involved in this discussion
> > from the beginning,
>
> So?
>
> > nor have you been involved in previous discussions
> > I've had with the same person before this.
>
> So?
>
> > That person is "Nomen Nescio", previously known as bobandcarole.
>
> So?
>
> > Now,
> > I realize that this is a public forum, but if you look at this
thread,
> > you will see that most of this banter has been between me and Nomen
> > Nescio, with some others familiar with the issues contributing.
>
> So?
>
> > Virtually all of the posts in this thread are between me and Blobby.
>
> So?
>
> > You yourself said that what I posted was COMMON KNOWLEDGE, so your
> > nasty request for a cite was unnecessary.
>
> Everything you have written so far in the post now being replied to
is an
> emotional appeal with no substantive argument of any kind, just like
your
> previous replies.
>
> > Rather than looking at YOURSELF with respect to this matter, you sit
> > there and dictate how one is supposed to post!
>
> And having lost the moral high-ground you now vainly attempt to take
the
> uncomfortable focus away from yourself with yet more emotional
appeals.
>
> > Stop dictating, have a look at YOURSELF,
>
> Ditto.
>
> > and then get over yourself.
>
> Translation: "I won't reply anymore therefore I win" coming right up.
>
> > //snip//
>
> So, tell me, Emerson, how does it feel to be so resoundingly beaten
>into a blubbering emotional pulp without your sexuality ever once
>entering the argument?
That's a good question, how does it feel Emmie?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
