XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Thanatos"  wrote in message   
   >> news:atropos-850F9B.16264622042010@news.giganews.com...   
   >> > In article ,   
   >> > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> "Ubiquitous"  wrote in message   
   >> >> news:3uSdnVGyE-i7y03WnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >> >> > atropos@mac.com wrote:   
   >> >> >> "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> >> >>> "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   >> >> >>> > "Arizona Bushwhacker"  wrote:   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >>> >> These Muslims are just like fucking tea-baggers.   
   >> >> >>> >> Muslims never condemn terrorist Muslims and therefore   
   >> >> >>> >> every Muslim is a terrorist.  Just like how tea-baggers   
   >> >> >>> >> never condemn terrorist tea-baggers.  I guess that   
   >> >> >>> >> gives me the right to call EVERY tea-bagger a terrorist!   
   >> >> >>> >   
   >> >> >>> > Which Tea Party person is a terrorist again?   
   >> >> >>>   
   >> >> >>> The original ones from Boston.   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>Vandalism is now terrorism?   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Destructive acts designed to bring down a government only   
   >> >> count as 'terrorism' if people die?   
   >> >   
   >> > Where exactly did I say that?   
   >>   
   >> You claimed above that the Boston Tea Party was an act of   
   >> vandalism, not terrorism.   
   >   
   > Yes.   
      
   ...and still wrong.   
      
   >> Since the desired effect was to scare/intimidate the legitimate   
   >> government and to local merchants, how was it not an act of   
   >> 'terrorism'?   
   >   
   > You claimed above that I asserted that an act isn't terrorism if no one   
   > dies. I challenged you to point out where exactly I said that.   
      
   I didn't claim that you asserted it, I asked a question in an effort to try   
   and discern what your reasoning was.  Since you know what a question mark   
   means and since you just used this exact same argument in another thread   
   (where you were the one that just asked the question), it seems a bit   
   idiotic for you to take the opposite side of the discussion in this thread.   
      
   > While I can understand you wanting to dodge that question, I'm going to   
   > insist that you answer it before we move on to your new question.   
      
   Wave your hands around like an idiot if you want, but the other thread   
   reveals very clearly that you understand the difference between asking a   
   question and making a claim.  As such, you know what question is on the   
   table and your refusal to answer it can only be taken as your owning up to   
   not having thought through your claim that the Boston Tea Party was only an   
   act of vandalism, not terrorism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)