69 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

Fine, let's pretend you're obtuse, and really didn't get the point. I'll play along:

You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?"

The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy.

Fine, perhaps a real enough phenomenon...but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology; you see, you write letters to reps, and so on. That's political activism. But there are certain specific issues...real ones, important ones--which I daresay you don't bother getting exercised about, for various reasons.

I don't consider that a fault, just to be clear. It's perfectly understandable, and all activists--including yoruself--must pick and choose his or her battles.

You, however, do consider it a fault.

When I mentioned your "hypocrisy," I was not laying my personal judgement upon you (I don't know nor care if you're actually a hypocrite, and wouldn't assume it in any case); I was applying your own judgement to yourself.

Certainly a long end run to get to a charge of hypocrisy.

I posted, "BTW where are the demonstrators in front of the book shop? If Tom Sawyer draws nays, shouldn't this!"

I Asked question. I posed a consideration. However your ad hominem response implied I personally should be there demonstrating if I opined that any other might wish to in the circumstance.
That does not meet the test of hypocrisy.

Posing a question orv a statement,is certainly not the same as would be a statement directly critical. I thought some concerned should be there protesting, that doesn't mean in anyway that others or I should be.
My posted question/statement was reasonable and not hypocritical in any sense.

You suggest far more than was said or implied by my posed question, to wit, "but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology;"

What partisanship. My question was not directed at any one part of society nor any one ideology.

You said, "You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?"



Exactly, I posed a question hypothetical question/statement for consideration. you have extrapolated that question far beyond it's content or intent.


You continued, "The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy."


Nonsense.
Perhaps to you, but not to me. A question is a question and a cigar but a cigar.

Edited by Peeves, 02 April 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[bleeding heart]

Certainly a long end run to get to a charge of hypocrisy.

And your response here is longer, and, unlike my own, quite empty.


Perhaps it's a literary conceit; as you pretend preposterously that you "didn't mean nothin," and that your remark was devoid of politics, and devoid of implied criticism....you analagously demonstrate the total emptiness of meaning by posting a meaningless (if reeking a little of "methinks he doth protest too much") justification.

Nonsense.
Perhaps to you, but not to me. A question is a question and a cigar but a cigar.

Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Edited by bleeding heart, 02 April 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Peeves]

And your response here is longer, and, unlike my own, quite empty.


Perhaps it's a literary conceit; as you pretend preposterously that you "didn't mean nothin," and that your remark was devoid of politics, and devoid of implied criticism....you analagously demonstrate the total emptiness of meaning by posting a meaningless (if reeking a little of "methinks he doth protest too much") justification.




Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Proving only that when one as you can not address the subject intelligently, attack the person.
Or as in law

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack. -

[bleeding heart]

Proving only that when one as you can not address the subject intelligently, attack the person.

Ah. So when you elsewhere inform cybercoma that

You quibble like a picayune pissant

you were openly conceding that you had "neither the facts nor the law...on your side," and that cybercoma was correct...and you were wrong!

Have you informed cybercoma of your concession to his superior argument yet?

'Cause I think you have not.

Edited by bleeding heart, 02 April 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Michael Hardner]

Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Hi BH, you seem to have good arguments on this board. Just a note, though, that the moderators here have little patience for insults on any level, and they reserve the right to discipline any poster who violates Rules and Guidelines in the top bar.

I'm a facilitator here, so I am only a messenger.

Welcome.

[jbg]

Perhaps to you, but not to me. A question is a question and a cigar but a cigar.

Is a proof a proof?

[bleeding heart]

Hi BH, you seem to have good arguments on this board. Just a note, though, that the moderators here have little patience for insults on any level, and they reserve the right to discipline any poster who violates Rules and Guidelines in the top bar.

I'm a facilitator here, so I am only a messenger.

Welcome.

I will indulge in a little more civility-effort, sure.

[American Woman]

Hi BH, you seem to have good arguments on this board. Just a note, though, that the moderators here have little patience for insults on any level, and they reserve the right to discipline any poster who violates Rules and Guidelines in the top bar.

I'm a facilitator here, so I am only a messenger.

Welcome.

No need to welcome him; he's already been here as Bloodyminded.

[Peeves]

Ah. So when you elsewhere inform cybercoma that



you were openly conceding that you had "neither the facts nor the law...on your side," and that cybercoma was correct...and you were wrong!

Have you informed cybercoma of your concession to his superior argument yet?

'Cause I think you have not.

'zactly. But Cyber knows I'm a fan and use any pejoratives lovingly. You Not so much.

[Peeves]

I will indulge in a little more civility-effort, sure.

Ah, come out an play. We have thick skins. Though some seem to have thick heads as well. Generally the thickness leans heads and posturing to the left.

[bleeding heart]

'zactly. But Cyber knows I'm a fan and use any pejoratives lovingly. You Not so much.

You were recently decrying "attacking the person," and are now embracing it lovingly.

[Peeves]

Is a proof a proof?

As in Canadian Whiskey? Or Rum? Or Cretienity?

[Peeves]

You were recently decrying "attacking the person," and are now embracing it lovingly.

My prerogative. I'm
flexible
that
way.

[bleeding heart]

My prerogative. I'm
flexible
that
way.

So my hypocrisy charge stands.

And you agree with it!



Beauty and comedy are self-generating phenomena.

[jbg]

As in Canadian Whiskey? Or Rum? Or Cretienity?

During July 2003 I was going to close off a trial by saying "as the leader of a great democracy recently said, 'a proof is a proof' and your honor, Plaintiff has not proven his proof". I couldn't keep a straight face.