XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
leg@sea wrote:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "leg@sea" wrote in
>> news:hchrio$c9t$10@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> On Oct 30, 2:34 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "leg@sea" wrote innews:hcfe6s$aeg$1@news.eternal-
>>>>> september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 8:29 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 7:09 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Telles felches spaniels in the break room.
>>>>>>>>> Blah blah blah, Spammy is the 12 year old that rapes little
>>>>>>>>> boys. Point proven.
>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>> How's life by the reservoir, shall we up the ante?
>>>>>>> Wow, you mean you are going to reveal my (*gasp*) name and
>>>>>>> address, Spammy? Gee, anyone with a PHONE BOOK can do that.
>>>>>> I _sure hope_ none of those 'crazed' gun owners you're always
>>>>>> trying to disenfranchise finds there was over to Lakewood,
>>>>>> Colorado, Matty...
>>>>> They probably won't pay any attention to his address.....after
>>>>> all, the vast majority of them are adult enough to realize that
>>>>> differences of opinion exist....and always will.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Done raping the 12 year old boys, Spammy?
>>>>>> Done trying to take away peoples' rights to own guns Matty?
>>>>> He hasn't tried to take mine away.....or yours if you have one. He
>>>>> simply has different ideas on gun control.
>>>> Eh, Spammy and I go way back to his Uncle Sam days on co.general.
>>>> Allegedly, he lives here. He doesn't like being shown up.
>>>>
>>>> As for gun control, I do have different ideas. I think that what
>>>> works in
>>>> one place won't work in another. In other words, I like the concept
>>>> of local control over matters. Does anyone truly disagree?
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> Why yes, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION does.
>>>
>>> You fucking piece of shit fascist gun-grabber.
>>
>> We can hold the discussion without the name calling....it simply
>> makes you look like Lee Harrison or TMT or Lookout.
>>
>
> The "discussion" is disingenuously tendered, as Matty always does.
The expose him for what he is.
> He's an anti-gun troll, no more, no less.
Perhaps.
> As such there is no pretense of civility or couth required.
Perhaps not for him, but the lurkers (and most groups have a number of them)
will see your venom and unless they are aware of past history with him, may
simply see you as a crazed nutcase who can't deal with the opinions of
others. (ie they will see you as the troll).
> You've no doubt engaged him before. He's a liar and a fraud.
Sure, but have the lurkers?
> And he will, as per always, retreat in a haze of denials, lies, edits,
> and inflammatory rhetoric.
At which point you can expose him to the lurkers and show that his position
has not real basis and perhaps get one of them to at least reconsider their
anti-gun opinion based on the reasonable and supportable facts you present
and his inability to respond.
> I'm merely accelerating the all too predictable pace.
Yep, and keeping any lurker from seeing information that may change their
mind, and possibly even confirming in their mind that people who want guns
are abusive, offensive, ill mannered people who you would want little or
nothing to do with.
Sure, you will probably never change Matt's mind, but what about those who
simply read and don't post? What will they make of your response?
I know, I use to do what you're doing know, and I have to admit I sometimes
still do. However, if you consider it a debate between two opposing points
of view before an audience, you will understand you're not trying to change
his mind.....you are simply using him to present your case to the public.
Make your case a good one.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
