My theory-Almost any martial art can work
Posthumandude
basis in all ranges. Almost all martial arts have effective techniques. The
only thing you have to do is remove the forms and spar with the techniques.
You'll naturally discover which ones work.
For instance: Looking at the silat videos you can see most would never work on
an uncooperative opponent. However, there's one technique where you grab the
attackers wrists and pull, while snap kicking him in the chin. Now this could
be a very good technique from wrestling wrist control.
h...@nospam.com
(Posthumandude) wrote:
ANY martial art can work if you want to live badly enough.
Hal
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
(Posthumandude) wrote:
>I've developed this theory. See I think even TKD can work, once you have a
>basis in all ranges. Almost all martial arts have effective techniques. The
>only thing you have to do is remove the forms and spar with the techniques.
>You'll naturally discover which ones work.
I've been saying this for years. But does anyone listen? Nooooo...
I routinely snag guys with aikido crap in MMA sessions. It's not the
pretty, flowing aikido stuff, but aikido nontheless. Though to look at
it you say "ah - that's greco". But greco isn't where I learnt it.
Ditto TKD (though mostly just the side kick).
I think MMA is the greatest thing since sliced bread. More folks
should get involved in it, try their stuff, then use their experiences
to further their own style/s.
Ironically, after a while, you notice a trend - what works from one
art is what works from all arts, despite the point of origin. You take
a MT round kick, you take a TKD round kick. After some MMA
refinement, you pretty much end up with the same kick.
*shrugs*
It's all good. Some things get you good faster.
*****************************************
Remove "your clothes" to email me
*****************************************
Dougie®
>I've developed this theory. See I think even TKD can work
Lies!
You bring that TKD sheet down to the "King Of The Keg" and see
what it gets you!
**snicker**
Chas
> For instance: Looking at the silat videos you can see most would never
work on
> an uncooperative opponent.
Do you think that Indonesia is full of cooperative opponents?
Do you think that a cabal of charlatans worked up a set of useless
applications in order to fleece an unsuspecting populace?
Don't be silly.
Chas
Posthumandude
>Do you think that Indonesia is full of cooperative opponents?
No, but america is.
>Do you think that a cabal of charlatans worked up a set of useless
>applications in order to fleece an unsuspecting populace?
>Don't be silly.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it certainly isn't unprecedented in
the history of MA.
Eric Neale
Any art will work if you learn it right, you get your body into good
shape and you find yourself in a situation your art was designed to
handle.
Kirk's B. had a great take on it too.
Theresa
>> Do you think that Indonesia is full of cooperative opponents?
>
>
>> Do you think that a cabal of charlatans worked up a set of useless
>> applications in order to fleece an unsuspecting populace?
>> Don't be silly.
Um, there was that guy who swiped Gartin's stuff, whatshisname.
>
> I'm not saying that's what happened, but it certainly isn't
> unprecedented in the history of MA.
Word.
Chas
> >Do you think that a cabal of charlatans worked up a set of useless
> >applications in order to fleece an unsuspecting populace?
> >Don't be silly.
> I'm not saying that's what happened, but it certainly isn't unprecedented
in
> the history of MA.
Which arts do you consider as having been formulated as a scam on the
unsuspecting populace?
Chas
Posthumandude
>unsuspecting populace?
TKD. SCARS.
GreenoNOCARRIERNOCARRIENOCARRIER
John
Civilian Krav Maga seems to be one popular answer.
Kirk Lawson
> I've been saying this for years. But does anyone listen? Nooooo...
Hmmm? I'm sorry, were you saying something?
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge
of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists
gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
Kirk Lawson
> Kirk's B. had a great take on it too.
He used to have a real name once.
I can't remember what it was though.
;-)
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>I can't remember what it was though.
The artist formerly known as GOU Ronin?
Eric Neale
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:47:20 -0500, Kirk Lawson
> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can't remember what it was though.
>
> The artist formerly known as GOU Ronin?
Wasn't that wager only good for a year? How much longer till you can
go back you your regular name?
Dougie®
>The artist formerly known as GOU Ronin?
Holy christ...
**calling my lawyer Trav**
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>
>>The artist formerly known as GOU Ronin?
>
> Holy christ...
>
> **calling my lawyer Trav**
>
Yeah. Maybe I should stop going thru your underwear draw and reading
your private mail and such?
Remember people - its not stalking if you love the person. Nu huh!
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
wrote:
>Wasn't that wager only good for a year? How much longer till you can
>go back you your regular name?
Until I can get a digital camera ;-)
I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
Kirk Lawson
> I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
Outside of hal hating me, it's my one claim to fame. :-)
Dougie®
>Yeah. Maybe I should stop going thru your underwear draw
What is this "underwear" you speak of?
> and reading
>your private mail and such?
What happens in Vegas...stays in Vegas.
>Remember people - its not stalking if you love the person. Nu huh!
Bah, tell that to Brittany Spears. Christina Agularia
understood. I had to MAKE her understand.
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
>
>>Yeah. Maybe I should stop going thru your underwear draw
>
> What is this "underwear" you speak of?
You're a nasty, nasty man.
*applause*
Eric Neale
> kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
>
> > I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
>
> Outside of hal hating me, it's my one claim to fame. :-)
>
Hal hating you is no claim to fame. He hates anyone who voices a
conservative opinion.
Dougie®
>>kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
>>>Yeah. Maybe I should stop going thru your underwear draw
>Dougie®<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>> What is this "underwear" you speak of?
>You're a nasty, nasty man.
>*applause*
**bow**
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>>> What is this "underwear" you speak of?
>
>>You're a nasty, nasty man.
>>*applause*
>
> **bow**
ZINNNG!!
(Or was the bowing without underware thing just me reading too much
into it)
Dougie®
>Dougie®<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>> What is this "underwear" you speak of?
kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
>>>You're a nasty, nasty man.
>>>*applause*
>Dougie®<dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>> **bow**
>ZINNNG!!
>(Or was the bowing without underware thing just me reading too much
>into it)
Is it drafty in here or is it just me?
Kirk Lawson
hehehe
Funny thing is that I'm way more vocal about my political opinions that *aren't*
conservative.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message news:<3FB157FA...@heapy.com>...
I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
Actually I feel sorry for you both.
I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion, but
it is always the conservatives who resort to the hate speech,
condemnation, and demands for retribution against anyone expressing
dissent with the conservative opinion. It is always the conservatives
who first resort to the ad hominems, I have had my imprisonment
demanded, threatened to be tarred and feathered, threats of violence
against me, told to leave the country, told to commit suicide and so
on. THAT is the conservative opinion.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
You don't have to say it.
> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
No. At best you feel complete and utter contempt. Do you want to go over the
list of things that you think I am again?
Nothing immoral there. I have complete and utter contempt for you too. It's
just that I'm honest about it.
> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion,
As long as no one else hears it.
> I have had my imprisonment demanded,
You're claiming that someone here on RMA is *seriously* demanding your
imprisonment? Who? When? Post a link.
(IH)
--
"Happily, we have a boob-in-residence, and needn't wait for an itinerant fool to
make his rounds."
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
>
>You don't have to say it.
No, but you just presume that everyone shares your hatred.
>
>
>> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
>
>No. At best you feel complete and utter contempt. Do you want to go over the
>list of things that you think I am again?
You mean besides a pseudo-Christian bigot, a hate speech advocate (in
the guise of Libertarianism), and suffering from a severe inferiority
complex because of your size? No, that pretty much covers it.
>
>Nothing immoral there. I have complete and utter contempt for you too. It's
>just that I'm honest about it.
>
Ah, yes, a fine example of a fine pseudo Christian bigot.
>
>> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion,
>
>As long as no one else hears it.
>
Actually I'm firm believer in freedom of speech and open political
discourse. That is why I am here. You are the one that takes it
personally.
>
>> I have had my imprisonment demanded,
>
>You're claiming that someone here on RMA is *seriously* demanding your
>imprisonment? Who? When? Post a link.
>
>(IH)
Oh, right, you were only joking.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:24:49 -0500, Kirk Lawson
> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
> >h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >
> >> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
> >
> >You don't have to say it.
>
> No, but you just presume that everyone shares your hatred.
I don't hate you hal. It's hard to hate someone so stupid as you.
> >> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
> >
> >No. At best you feel complete and utter contempt. Do you want to go over the
> >list of things that you think I am again?
>
> You mean besides a pseudo-Christian bigot, a hate speech advocate (in
> the guise of Libertarianism), and suffering from a severe inferiority
> complex because of your size? No, that pretty much covers it.
Yeah. That stuff. You've called me a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, and any number of
other things including the just added pseudo-Christian.
It's a good thing you don't engage in insults and hate speech, huh hal.
> >Nothing immoral there. I have complete and utter contempt for you too. It's
> >just that I'm honest about it.
> >
>
> Ah, yes, a fine example of a fine pseudo Christian bigot.
And yet it's hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to bullies, napoleon syndrome
sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, pseudo-Christian who is the ONLY person around
here to EVER defend YOUR rights to free speech, privacy, freedom from threats,
dissassociation of your family, and your right to live where you wish.
Funny that, huh?
Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
hal wrong about something? Nah.
> >> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion,
> >
> >As long as no one else hears it.
> >
>
> Actually I'm firm believer in freedom of speech and open political
> discourse. That is why I am here. You are the one that takes it
> personally.
Gee, how could anyone possibly "take it personally" after being called a hater,
bigot, bully, sycophant to bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi,
fundi, pseudo-Christian. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
> >> I have had my imprisonment demanded,
> >
> >You're claiming that someone here on RMA is *seriously* demanding your
> >imprisonment? Who? When? Post a link.
> >
> >(IH)
>
> Oh, right, you were only joking.
No. It's not a joke, but it's not literal either. As I've so often said (check
google; apparently you've burned out your long term memory), it's a poke at you
to remind you that people can, and occasionally *ARE* imprisoned without doing
something to "deserve it" as you claimed.
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:24:49 -0500, Kirk Lawson
>> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
>> >
>> >You don't have to say it.
>>
>> No, but you just presume that everyone shares your hatred.
>
>I don't hate you hal. It's hard to hate someone so stupid as you.
>
It's easy for you to dismiss someone as stupid so that you can look
down upon them. That you must do to make yourself feel big.
Truth is, I've trashed you with the facts more times than you are
capable of counting, but like your own admission (surprisingly) you
never admit you are wrong.
>
>> >> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
>> >
>> >No. At best you feel complete and utter contempt. Do you want to go over the
>> >list of things that you think I am again?
>>
>> You mean besides a pseudo-Christian bigot, a hate speech advocate (in
>> the guise of Libertarianism), and suffering from a severe inferiority
>> complex because of your size? No, that pretty much covers it.
>
>Yeah. That stuff. You've called me a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
>bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, and any number of
>other things including the just added pseudo-Christian.
>
>It's a good thing you don't engage in insults and hate speech, huh hal.
>
You cast the first stone. Remember when? It's ironic this should
show up in a thread entitled 'almost any martial art can work.'
Remember what started my issue with you? Remember how you responded?
Let's see you google
ding ! ding !
>
>> >Nothing immoral there. I have complete and utter contempt for you too. It's
>> >just that I'm honest about it.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, yes, a fine example of a fine pseudo Christian bigot.
>
>And yet it's hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to bullies, napoleon syndrome
>sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, pseudo-Christian who is the ONLY person around
>here to EVER defend YOUR rights to free speech, privacy, freedom from threats,
>dissassociation of your family, and your right to live where you wish.
I don't need you defending my rights. You were just playing to the
crowd.
>
>Funny that, huh?
>
>Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
>
>hal wrong about something? Nah.
Not about you. That is why you are so bitter and contemptuous.
>
>
>> >> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion,
>> >
>> >As long as no one else hears it.
>> >
>>
>> Actually I'm firm believer in freedom of speech and open political
>> discourse. That is why I am here. You are the one that takes it
>> personally.
>
>Gee, how could anyone possibly "take it personally" after being called a hater,
>bigot, bully, sycophant to bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi,
>fundi, pseudo-Christian. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>
At least my characterizations of you have some basis in reality. You
on the other hand always stuck with the idiot and moron labels because
you couldn't even be creative or accurate. Arguing with you reminds
me of gradeschool.
>
>
>> >> I have had my imprisonment demanded,
>> >
>> >You're claiming that someone here on RMA is *seriously* demanding your
>> >imprisonment? Who? When? Post a link.
>> >
>> >(IH)
>>
>> Oh, right, you were only joking.
>
>No. It's not a joke, but it's not literal either. As I've so often said (check
>google; apparently you've burned out your long term memory), it's a poke at you
>to remind you that people can, and occasionally *ARE* imprisoned without doing
>something to "deserve it" as you claimed.
Once again, you lie, or possess the same long term burnout you accuse
me of. I had an open mind about Gartin. I went looking about who
this guy was everyone had boner for. What I found was a raving
lunatic. I could not presume his innocence like all his toadies, and
said that there was a _reasonable probability_ that this guy was
likely guilty of at least some degree of wrongdoing. Even if he was
originally innocent, everything he did after that only made it worse
for himself, and of that he was guilty. I never believed he was
completely innocent, and I concluded that based on his maniacal
ravings that I found when I went objectively looking, with an open
mind. Something you don't possess. THAT is what I said, and of
course you must lie because the truth is rarely on your side.
Go ahead, let's see how many out of context quotes you can google
again.
ding ! ding !
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> It's easy for you to dismiss someone as stupid
because your so dumb.
> Truth is, I've trashed you with the facts more times than you are
> capable of counting, but like your own admission (surprisingly) you
> never admit you are wrong.
keep believing it hal. It'll help you sleep better at night.
> >Yeah. That stuff. You've called me a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
> >bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, and any number of
> >other things including the just added pseudo-Christian.
> >
> >It's a good thing you don't engage in insults and hate speech, huh hal.
> >
>
> You cast the first stone. Remember when?
Yeah. Right after you called my a bully and a sychophant to bullies. Then I
unloaded.
> It's ironic
that you're still yammering about how open minded you are.
> Remember what started my issue with you? Remember how you responded?
Yeah. You called me a bully and a sychophant to bullies.
And I responded by telling you how I really felt about you.
moron.
> Let's see you google
What you need help?
OK. First go to http://groups.google.com
Follow the on screen instructions.
> >> Ah, yes, a fine example of a fine pseudo Christian bigot.
> >
> >And yet it's hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to bullies, napoleon syndrome
> >sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, pseudo-Christian who is the ONLY person around
> >here to EVER defend YOUR rights to free speech, privacy, freedom from threats,
> >dissassociation of your family, and your right to live where you wish.
>
> I don't need you defending my rights. You were just playing to the
> crowd.
hahahah That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
"<sniff sniff> I don't need you. I don't need anybody. Besides, you were just
doing it to look good <sniff sniff> [wipes nose on back of hand]"
Playing to the crowd! That's great hal! hahahah
Cognitive dissonance at it's best! Good show.
> >Funny that, huh?
> >
> >Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
> >
> >hal wrong about something? Nah.
>
> Not about you.
Suuure hal. You're *so* right.
> That is why you are so bitter and contemptuous.
Not a bit bitter. You nailed contemptuous though.
> At least my characterizations of you have some basis in reality.
hahaha Yeah hal. Sleep soundly bud.
> You
> on the other hand always stuck with the idiot and moron labels because
they're so accurate.
> Once again, you lie,
Nope. It's right there in google. I've shown you a half dozen times now.
You're just hoping that if you say it enough other people will believe you.
> I could not presume his innocence
Yeah, cuz in america we've got this thing called presumed guilty until proven
innocent. ...or sumpthn like that...
> said that there was a _reasonable probability_ that this guy was
> likely guilty of at least some degree of wrongdoing.
Guilty of wrongdoing based on *what* again? You can obviously presume guilt
based on lack of evidence. Good call.
> Even if he was
> originally innocent, everything he did after that only made it worse
> for himself, and of that he was guilty.
Yeah. That's right. NEVER stand up for yourself or experience outrage and
anger when you're wrongfully imprisoned. Good call again.
Vive la Revolution! Power to the... uh... government?
> I never believed he was
> completely innocent,
Yeah, we know.
> Go ahead, let's see how many out of context quotes you can google
> again.
It's right there in google. Still having trouble working that computer thingy,
are you?
> ding ! ding !
It's time to take your brain out of the oven hal. The timer says it's over
done.
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> It's easy for you to dismiss someone as stupid
>
>because your so dumb.
"your so dumb"
LOL !
god I love that one.
>
>
>> Truth is, I've trashed you with the facts more times than you are
>> capable of counting, but like your own admission (surprisingly) you
>> never admit you are wrong.
>
>keep believing it hal. It'll help you sleep better at night.
any time you want to pull up a score card let me know.
go over them one by one with you I will. . . .
>
>
>> >Yeah. That stuff. You've called me a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
>> >bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, and any number of
>> >other things including the just added pseudo-Christian.
>> >
>> >It's a good thing you don't engage in insults and hate speech, huh hal.
>> >
>>
>> You cast the first stone. Remember when?
>
>Yeah. Right after you called my a bully and a sychophant to bullies. Then I
>unloaded.
Unloaded? Your gun was always empty. You didn't need to unload.
You know,if I was actually so wrong, you would have just laughed it
off, like I do your moron and idiot labels. You are a prime example
of the lad protesting too much.
>
>
>> It's ironic
>
>that you're still yammering about how open minded you are.
Well, I try, but I am only human, you know.
>
>
>> Remember what started my issue with you? Remember how you responded?
>
>Yeah. You called me a bully and a sychophant to bullies.
>
>And I responded by telling you how I really felt about you.
>
>moron.
I hit my mark dead on. You've proven that over and over.
>> I don't need you defending my rights. You were just playing to the
>> crowd.
>
>hahahah That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
>
>"<sniff sniff> I don't need you. I don't need anybody. Besides, you were just
>doing it to look good <sniff sniff> [wipes nose on back of hand]"
>
>Playing to the crowd! That's great hal! hahahah
>
No, I don't need you defending me. And you do play to the crowd all
the time. Argumentum ad populum and tagalongitus are your two
favorite maladies.
Tagalongitus is how you survived HS, and it's how you survive RMA
>
>
>> >Funny that, huh?
>> >
>> >Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
>> >
>> >hal wrong about something? Nah.
>>
>> Not about you.
>
>Suuure hal. You're *so* right.
Yep. About you, and you know it. You prove it every day.
>
>
>> That is why you are so bitter and contemptuous.
>
>Not a bit bitter. You nailed contemptuous though.
you should ask yourself why you have so much contempt for another
human being having done nothing more than having a different opinion
than you.
>
>
>> At least my characterizations of you have some basis in reality.
>
>hahaha Yeah hal. Sleep soundly bud.
Yep. You prove me right every one of your posts.
>
>
>> You
>> on the other hand always stuck with the idiot and moron labels because
>
>they're so accurate.
>
>
>> Once again, you lie,
>
>Nope. It's right there in google. I've shown you a half dozen times now.
>You're just hoping that if you say it enough other people will believe you.
Sure, post it again. You've reposted it before thinking it will make
you right, and I explain every time the record proves my objectivity,
and I explained how I came to my conclusion and why. Post it again if
you want.
>
>> I could not presume his innocence
>
>Yeah, cuz in america we've got this thing called presumed guilty until proven
>innocent. ...or sumpthn like that...
Yea, gee, the authorities had a ream of stuff on him, and he put up a
website challenging them to trial by combat. His name showed up on a
number of neo-secessionist and anti-defamation sites. He is well
known all around. Lots suck up to him here because he knows how to
knife people, and among the wannabes that is an achievement of the
social acceptance you so desperately seek.
>
>
>> said that there was a _reasonable probability_ that this guy was
>> likely guilty of at least some degree of wrongdoing.
>
>Guilty of wrongdoing based on *what* again? You can obviously presume guilt
>based on lack of evidence. Good call.
Um, his very own sites claimed he was above man's law because he
answered only to a higher law. Classic example of an extremist
anarchist. No different than extremist anarchists who's wifes and
kids we are blowing up as we speak.
>
>
>> Even if he was
>> originally innocent, everything he did after that only made it worse
>> for himself, and of that he was guilty.
>
>Yeah. That's right. NEVER stand up for yourself or experience outrage and
>anger when you're wrongfully imprisoned. Good call again.
>
>Vive la Revolution! Power to the... uh... government?
Like I've said a gazillion times, "it's the extremists, stupid"
>>> I never believed he was
>> completely innocent,
>
>Yeah, we know.
>
>
>
>> Go ahead, let's see how many out of context quotes you can google
>> again.
>
>It's right there in google. Still having trouble working that computer thingy,
>are you?
>
You are the out of context quote google meister. I was mocking you.
Others have mocked you for claiming it was in google and considering
that proof of your correctness. It's not. You pull any thing up out
of the archives you want. I will stand by anything I've ever said.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> "your so dumb"
Looser.
> >> Truth is, I've trashed you with the facts more times than you are
> >> capable of counting, but like your own admission (surprisingly) you
> >> never admit you are wrong.
> >
> >keep believing it hal. It'll help you sleep better at night.
>
> any time you want to pull up a score card let me know.
>
> go over them one by one with you I will. . . .
Every time you try people blast you for it.
> You know,if I was actually so wrong, you would have just laughed it
> off, like I do your moron and idiot labels. You are a prime example
> of the lad protesting too much.
I enjoy arguing sometimes. It's fun. And, in this case, easy as well.
> >that you're still yammering about how open minded you are.
>
> Well, I try, but I am only human, you know.
You give yourself *way* too much credit.
on the "human" part, that is.
> No, I don't need you defending me.
And yet I do it whether you want me to or not. I *DEFEND* your rights. The
person that you hate so much that you're willing to give every evil sounding
label you can think of *still* defends your rights.
Must do it 'cuz I'm so evil and I enjoy watching the dichotomy, huh?
> And you do play to the crowd all
> the time.
Translation: Oh crap! Kirk's, right, I've insulted him every way I know how and
he's still the only one that sticks up for me when someone says I don't have the
right to say what I do, shouldn't live here in America, wants to disclose
private information about me, or wants my family to suffer consequences because
of *my* actions! Crap! LOOK OVER THERE!
> Tagalongitus is how you survived HS, and it's how you survive RMA
High School? Where was it that I went to HS hal? Who were my friends? How
many of them were there? What subjects did I excel in? Did I drive or ride the
bus? Do you even know the *State* that I went to HS in?
> >> >Funny that, huh?
> >> >
> >> >Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
> >> >
> >> >hal wrong about something? Nah.
> >>
> >> Not about you.
> >
> >Suuure hal. You're *so* right.
>
> Yep. About you, and you know it. You prove it every day.
Yup. Every time I tell someone that you have the right to say any stupid thing
you want here on RMA, I prove that I'm a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, pseudo-Christian. I'm
not exactly sure how, but you said it, therefore it *must* be true!
> >> That is why you are so bitter and contemptuous.
> >
> >Not a bit bitter. You nailed contemptuous though.
>
> you should ask yourself why you have so much contempt for another
> human being having done nothing more than having a different opinion
> than you.
I have. The answer is because your a moron with an exagurated opinion of you're
abilities.
(I have a personal bet)
> >Nope. It's right there in google. I've shown you a half dozen times now.
> >You're just hoping that if you say it enough other people will believe you.
>
> Sure, post it again.
Will you read it this time and admit that you wrote what you wrote?
> >Yeah, cuz in america we've got this thing called presumed guilty until proven
> >innocent. ...or sumpthn like that...
>
> Yea, gee, the authorities had a ream of stuff on him,
And, for some reason, never went to trial. Why izzat?
> social acceptance you so desperately seek.
BZZZT! Wrong diagnosis again hal. I meet my needs for "Social Acceptance" lots
of other places then on RMA. Thanks for playing.
> >> said that there was a _reasonable probability_ that this guy was
> >> likely guilty of at least some degree of wrongdoing.
> >
> >Guilty of wrongdoing based on *what* again? You can obviously presume guilt
> >based on lack of evidence. Good call.
>
> Um, his very own sites claimed he was above man's law because he
> answered only to a higher law. Classic example of an extremist
> anarchist. No different than extremist anarchists who's wifes and
> kids we are blowing up as we speak.
Translation: Ummm... I don't have any basis but if I obfuscate maybe no one
will notice...
> >> Even if he was
> >> originally innocent, everything he did after that only made it worse
> >> for himself, and of that he was guilty.
> >
> >Yeah. That's right. NEVER stand up for yourself or experience outrage and
> >anger when you're wrongfully imprisoned. Good call again.
> >
> >Vive la Revolution! Power to the... uh... government?
>
> Like I've said a gazillion times, "it's the extremists, stupid"
What you don't realize is that *YOU* are the extremist. Ask yourself this hal
(if you are capable of such personal honestly - which I doubt): Why is it that
none of the other self described Liberals or Moderates on RMA agree with you on
anything approaching a regular basis?
I know! They're really LIEING about their liberalism / moderation! If they
*truly* were Liberals or Moderates, they'd agree with you! The very fact that
they're ON RMA means that they MUST be conservative, nazi, bigots!
> >It's right there in google. Still having trouble working that computer thingy,
> >are you?
> >
>
> You are the out of context quote google meister.
Nice dodge. Doesn't hang though.
> I was mocking you.
I usually don't think you're worth the effort to mock. I skip strait to rude.
> Others have mocked you for claiming it was in google and considering
> that proof of your correctness.
Examples? Post links.
> I will stand by anything I've ever said.
Except when it says something that you wish it didn't, huh hal.
(IH)
--
"Happily, we have a boob-in-residence, and needn't wait for an itinerant fool to
make his rounds."
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge
Eric Neale
> On 11 Nov 2003 19:02:51 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
> >Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message news:<3FB157FA...@heapy.com>...
> >> kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
> >>
> >> Outside of hal hating me, it's my one claim to fame. :-)
> >>
> >
> >Hal hating you is no claim to fame. He hates anyone who voices a
> >conservative opinion.
>
> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
You don't have to say it directly. Would you like to explain how
calling me a bigot was justified? I have been asking for weeks and
never got a real answer.
>
> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
>
> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion, but
> it is always the conservatives who resort to the hate speech,
Always? I didn't know you were a conservative. Nemo must be one too.
Glad to here it.
> condemnation, and demands for retribution against anyone expressing
> dissent with the conservative opinion.
When did I ever demand retribution against anyone for expressing an
opinion?
. . . . It is always the conservatives
> who first resort to the ad hominems,
LOL! This from the guy who can't tell the difference between a
fallacy and logic.
. . . I have had my imprisonment
> demanded,
In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
because you are a liberal.
. . .threatened to be tarred and feathered,
I believe that was in response to you abusing a 13 year old girl.
Yes, tar and feathering you would be a reasonable thing to do but it
isn't because you are a liberal.
. . . threats of violence
> against me, told to leave the country,
In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
. . . told to commit suicide and so
> on. THAT is the conservative opinion.
>
> Hal
No it is just a response to your behavior.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote in message news:<78l4rv8huuff48iv0...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Nov 2003 19:02:51 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message news:<3FB157FA...@heapy.com>...
>> >> kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Outside of hal hating me, it's my one claim to fame. :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hal hating you is no claim to fame. He hates anyone who voices a
>> >conservative opinion.
>>
>> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
>
>You don't have to say it directly. Would you like to explain how
>calling me a bigot was justified? I have been asking for weeks and
>never got a real answer.
Like I said, bigot is not necessarily an insult, only in it's extreme.
It was obviously a discussion that was going nowhere so was not worth
the time. I can't even explain to you what is the source of wealth
is, so how can I explain to you what a bigot is?
>
>
>>
>> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
>>
>> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion, but
>> it is always the conservatives who resort to the hate speech,
>
>Always? I didn't know you were a conservative. Nemo must be one too.
> Glad to here it.
actually I am quite conservative. Unfortunately right wingers these
days are not true conservatives. The term is neo-conservative.
>
>
>> condemnation, and demands for retribution against anyone expressing
>> dissent with the conservative opinion.
>
>
>When did I ever demand retribution against anyone for expressing an
>opinion?
I didn't say you specifically.
>
>. . . . It is always the conservatives
>> who first resort to the ad hominems,
>
>LOL! This from the guy who can't tell the difference between a
>fallacy and logic.
>
Um, "logical fallacies"? Not familiar with the term?
>
>. . . I have had my imprisonment
>> demanded,
>
>
>In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
>because you are a liberal.
>
Some who is guilty deserves it. Fact is our prisons are full of
people, most of whom insist on their innocence.
>
>. . .threatened to be tarred and feathered,
>
>I believe that was in response to you abusing a 13 year old girl.
>Yes, tar and feathering you would be a reasonable thing to do but it
>isn't because you are a liberal.
Um, no, that came long before that, and that wasn't a 13 year old
girl, it was Trav.
>
>
>. . . threats of violence
>> against me, told to leave the country,
>
>
>In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
>you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
No, I love my country. What I am resist is self serving
neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
selfish interests.
>
>
>. . . told to commit suicide and so
>> on. THAT is the conservative opinion.
>>
>> Hal
>
>No it is just a response to your behavior.
Oh right. Yelling Hitler sucks in a neo-nazi bar does tend to get
people riled up. You should ask yourself just exactly what I've said
that has pissed you off so much and why.
Hal
Eric Neale
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:34:36 -0500, Kirk Lawson
> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
> >h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >
> >> It's easy for you to dismiss someone as stupid
> >
> >because your so dumb.
>
> "your so dumb"
>
> LOL !
>
> god I love that one.
You must because you use it all the time.
>
> >
> >
> >> Truth is, I've trashed you with the facts more times than you are
> >> capable of counting, but like your own admission (surprisingly) you
> >> never admit you are wrong.
> >
> >keep believing it hal. It'll help you sleep better at night.
>
> any time you want to pull up a score card let me know.
>
> go over them one by one with you I will. . . .
Don't lie Hal. I have tried doing this with you and you pull the
exact same games - you spew out fallacys, smoke screens, circular
reasoning and when that does not work all we hear from you is silence
followed by you braging about your victories.
I ask you a question pointing out one of your blunders and it starts
over again.
I love your current blunder. You said that wealth can be created
"Only if you use a completely selfish definition of wealth, as you
are."
and then in your very next post in an atempt to show how unreasonable
I am you post a link
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wealth
to a page that has my definition of wealth. Good thinking Hal. Now
that you helped me prove my point are you going to admit you were
wrong on this issue? Why did it take so long for you to see it?
> >> >Yeah. That stuff. You've called me a hater, bigot, bully, sycophant to
> >> >bullies, napoleon syndrome sufferer, racist, nazi, fundi, and any number of
> >> >other things including the just added pseudo-Christian.
> >> >
> >> >It's a good thing you don't engage in insults and hate speech, huh hal.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You cast the first stone. Remember when?
> >
> >Yeah. Right after you called my a bully and a sychophant to bullies. Then I
> >unloaded.
>
> Unloaded? Your gun was always empty. You didn't need to unload.
He has a point oh Great-Open-Minded-One-Who-Spews-Insults-Instead-Of-Substance.
This is your standard tactic: make a claim that is false and when
someone points out that you are full of it change the subject.
> You know,if I was actually so wrong, you would have just laughed it
> off, like I do your moron and idiot labels. You are a prime example
> of the lad protesting too much.
I think these threads prove that we would continue to try and eduacte
a guy no mater how wrong he is.
>
> >
> >
> >> It's ironic
> >
> >that you're still yammering about how open minded you are.
>
> Well, I try, but I am only human, you know.
It is false you know.
> >
> >
> >> Remember what started my issue with you? Remember how you responded?
> >
> >Yeah. You called me a bully and a sychophant to bullies.
> >
> >And I responded by telling you how I really felt about you.
> >
> >moron.
>
> I hit my mark dead on. You've proven that over and over.
That when you insult someone enough they get pissed?
> >> I don't need you defending my rights. You were just playing to the
> >> crowd.
> >
> >hahahah That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
> >
> >"<sniff sniff> I don't need you. I don't need anybody. Besides, you were just
> >doing it to look good <sniff sniff> [wipes nose on back of hand]"
> >
> >Playing to the crowd! That's great hal! hahahah
> >
>
> No, I don't need you defending me. And you do play to the crowd all
> the time. Argumentum ad populum and tagalongitus are your two
> favorite maladies.
Don't use words you do not understand.
>
> Tagalongitus is how you survived HS, and it's how you survive RMA
>
> >
> >
> >> >Funny that, huh?
> >> >
> >> >Couldn't be that you're wrong about me, now could it.
> >> >
> >> >hal wrong about something? Nah.
> >>
> >> Not about you.
> >
> >Suuure hal. You're *so* right.
>
> Yep. About you, and you know it. You prove it every day.
Hal, I have never meet someone this closed minded. You take first
place.
>
> >
> >
> >> That is why you are so bitter and contemptuous.
> >
> >Not a bit bitter. You nailed contemptuous though.
>
> you should ask yourself why you have so much contempt for another
> human being having done nothing more than having a different opinion
> than you.
There can be no 'why' unless he does something to begin with. It is
like asking yourself "Why do I have X-ray vission?" Well you don't so
the question is pointless.
Poor Hal. The whole world is after him just because he is a nice guy
who happens to be liberal. Could it be that people get pissed at you
because you are not nice? Could that be the reason? Hmmmmm . . .
<the rest of the propaganda sniped>
Eric Neale
> On 12 Nov 2003 12:30:31 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
> >h...@nospam.com wrote in message news:<78l4rv8huuff48iv0...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 11 Nov 2003 19:02:51 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message news:<3FB157FA...@heapy.com>...
> >> >> kirks...@YOURCLOTHESoperamail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I've grown attached to it. It seems to irritate Kirk to no end ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Outside of hal hating me, it's my one claim to fame. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Hal hating you is no claim to fame. He hates anyone who voices a
> >> >conservative opinion.
> >>
> >> I don't hate either one of you. Never said that.
> >
> >You don't have to say it directly. Would you like to explain how
> >calling me a bigot was justified? I have been asking for weeks and
> >never got a real answer.
>
> Like I said, bigot is not necessarily an insult, only in it's extreme.
You know it is an insult. You call people names in an effort to
discredit them when you loseing and that was all that happened here.
I wouldn't care except that it was just one more thing you said that
was flat out wrong. You can't justify it but that doesn't stop you
from saying it.
> It was obviously a discussion that was going nowhere so was not worth
> the time. I can't even explain to you what is the source of wealth
> is, so how can I explain to you what a bigot is?
Both are beyond your abilities. I just wanted it to be clear that you
*could not* back up your words. Slander is a poor substitute for
substance.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Actually I feel sorry for you both.
> >>
> >> I have nothing against anyone expressing a conservative opinion, but
> >> it is always the conservatives who resort to the hate speech,
> >
> >Always? I didn't know you were a conservative. Nemo must be one too.
> > Glad to here it.
>
> actually I am quite conservative. Unfortunately right wingers these
> days are not true conservatives. The term is neo-conservative.
Funny - just a few posts ago you were ranting about how it was always
the conservatives who resort to the hate speech. Why are you ranting
about yourself?
"Neo-conservative" is just another one of your slurs that you use to
discredit opponents when you cannot handle a debate.
>
> >
> >
> >> condemnation, and demands for retribution against anyone expressing
> >> dissent with the conservative opinion.
> >
> >
> >When did I ever demand retribution against anyone for expressing an
> >opinion?
>
> I didn't say you specifically.
>
> >
> >. . . . It is always the conservatives
> >> who first resort to the ad hominems,
> >
> >LOL! This from the guy who can't tell the difference between a
> >fallacy and logic.
> >
>
> Um, "logical fallacies"? Not familiar with the term?
You have proved that you do not understand the concept. You often use
fallacies in the very same post where you falsely accuse someone else
of doing so. It is comical.
>
> >
> >. . . I have had my imprisonment
> >> demanded,
> >
> >
> >In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
> >because you are a liberal.
> >
> Some who is guilty deserves it. Fact is our prisons are full of
> people, most of whom insist on their innocence.
Yes, but that wasn't what you said that propted Kirk to adapt (IH) in
his sig. Your comments were very specific.
> >. . .threatened to be tarred and feathered,
> >
> >I believe that was in response to you abusing a 13 year old girl.
> >Yes, tar and feathering you would be a reasonable thing to do but it
> >isn't because you are a liberal.
>
> Um, no, that came long before that, and that wasn't a 13 year old
> girl, it was Trav.
And I should belive this because . . .
Even if it was Trav you still showed your true colors.
> >
> >
> >. . . threats of violence
> >> against me, told to leave the country,
> >
> >
> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
>
> No, I love my country.
Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
. . . What I am resist is self serving
> neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
> selfish interests.
Since that isn't happening you should have nothing to worry about.
>
> >
> >
> >. . . told to commit suicide and so
> >> on. THAT is the conservative opinion.
> >>
> >> Hal
> >
> >No it is just a response to your behavior.
>
> Oh right. Yelling Hitler sucks in a neo-nazi bar does tend to get
> people riled up. You should ask yourself just exactly what I've said
> that has pissed you off so much and why.
It's not your political views (although it is hard to bear the way in
which you express them) but rather it is your hypocracy that I find
offensive. You complain about those who engage in a certin behavior
yet you engage in the exact same behavior while you brag about how you
do not.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>> Um, "logical fallacies"? Not familiar with the term?
>
>
>You have proved that you do not understand the concept.
Oh, I understand the concept very well. Very, very well. If you have
any questions let me know. I can link to to many interesting sites if
you want.
> You often use
>fallacies in the very same post where you falsely accuse someone else
>of doing so. It is comical.
Name one, with the example of what I said, and explain why it would
qualify. Please. I can't wait.
I've clearly identified some of yours.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >. . . I have had my imprisonment
>> >> demanded,
>> >
>> >
>> >In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
>> >because you are a liberal.
>> >
>> Some who is guilty deserves it. Fact is our prisons are full of
>> people, most of whom insist on their innocence.
>
>
>Yes, but that wasn't what you said that propted Kirk to adapt (IH) in
>his sig. Your comments were very specific.
It was the Gartin thread, and Kirk decided I was deserving
imprisonment merely because I came out and stated that someone who has
had that much trouble with the law was in most likelihood actually
guilty of wrongdoing. For me it was his trial by combat and "a man
above the a laws of men" web sites that clinched it for me.
>
>
>
>> >. . .threatened to be tarred and feathered,
>> >
>> >I believe that was in response to you abusing a 13 year old girl.
>> >Yes, tar and feathering you would be a reasonable thing to do but it
>> >isn't because you are a liberal.
>>
>> Um, no, that came long before that, and that wasn't a 13 year old
>> girl, it was Trav.
>
>And I should belive this because . . .
>
>Even if it was Trav you still showed your true colors.
Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >. . . threats of violence
>> >> against me, told to leave the country,
>> >
>> >
>> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
>> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
>>
>> No, I love my country.
>
>Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
of it IS neocons and bigots.
>
>
>. . . What I am resist is self serving
>> neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
>> selfish interests.
>
>
>Since that isn't happening you should have nothing to worry about.
It could be. I has happened before. It could happen again.
Political discourse is what helps to keep it from happening again.
People like you who are against political discourse and condemn people
for taking a non-popular stance are what allows it to happen again.
There's a nice appropriate quote that goes here. Need me to post it
again? Its by a guy name George Santayana
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >. . . told to commit suicide and so
>> >> on. THAT is the conservative opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Hal
>> >
>> >No it is just a response to your behavior.
>>
>> Oh right. Yelling Hitler sucks in a neo-nazi bar does tend to get
>> people riled up. You should ask yourself just exactly what I've said
>> that has pissed you off so much and why.
>
>It's not your political views (although it is hard to bear the way in
>which you express them) but rather it is your hypocracy that I find
>offensive. You complain about those who engage in a certin behavior
>yet you engage in the exact same behavior while you brag about how you
>do not.
It's like self defense, no? Actually I started out as the nice guy.
I've always love martial science and have studied many styles over the
last 25 years. I came here looking for information and new ideas. It
was all the style bashing that got me going. I see the fact that
there are a great many lessons that can be learned from any art and I
tried to defend some of the less popular styles here. I tried to
point out the good parts,and great many benefits they could offer
people. What I received was the most apalling putdowns and nasty
bitter insulting assholes I ever could imagine. Admittedly, I shot
right back with pretty much the same, but it all started out with a
thread called TKD sucks. I tried to explain to people that TKD didn't
suck, only some TKD schools. It turned out many here had to think ANY
style but their own sucked, and everyone else sucked to. Once I
realized why, I tried to explain why. It's been pretty much down hill
ever since. Admittedly, I allowed myself to sink to their level, and
that I do truly regret. I should have remained above them, but when
you're rolling with biting scumbags, sometimes you end up biting back.
Besides, my insults, were actually an attempt to categorize a persons
behavior and determine a reason for the behavior, kinda like me
figuring out Kirk was 5'5" and recognized that he exhibited severe
"little guys disease" without having ever seen him (he's hated me
ever since). My detractors could only come up with really inventive
stuff pretty much unchanged since 6th grade: moron, idiot, etc. not
to mention the many threats of physical violence and challenges for
trial by combat.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> >> >In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
> >> >because you are a liberal.
> >> >
> >> Some who is guilty deserves it. Fact is our prisons are full of
> >> people, most of whom insist on their innocence.
> >
> >
> >Yes, but that wasn't what you said that propted Kirk to adapt (IH) in
> >his sig. Your comments were very specific.
>
> It was the Gartin thread, and Kirk decided I was deserving
> imprisonment
Nah. It's not a joke, but it's not literal either. Like I said.
> merely because I came out and stated that someone who has
> had that much trouble with the law was in most likelihood actually
> guilty of wrongdoing.
Lie. I've got it saved and can easily repost it. Wouldn't have to even google
search.
> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
She's not trav and you were way out of line.
> Besides, my insults, were actually an attempt to categorize a persons
> behavior and determine a reason for the behavior, kinda like me
> figuring out Kirk was 5'5" and recognized that he exhibited severe
> "little guys disease" without having ever seen him
Still missing the mark, hal.
> (he's hated me ever since).
Nah. I don't hate you. I don't like you either. I've had no respect for you
for a while now, iirc, about when you started blathering about how easy it is to
take weapons away from people. I've been utterly contemptuous of you since you
called me a bully. No greater insult for me.
> My detractors could only come up with really inventive
> stuff pretty much unchanged since 6th grade: moron, idiot, etc.
Well, gee hal. I didn't realize that the quality of vocabulary used to call
into question your meager mental capabilities was disappointing you. I've got a
whole bunch I can throw at it if it'll help. Besides "stupid" and "moron"
there's also "vacuous," "vapid," "insipid," "inane," "deficient," "asinine,"
"idiotic," "fatuous"... and a whole bunch of others. I can think of probably
about 8 or 10 more and doubtless a trip to a thesaurus would supply many others.
All better now?
> not
> to mention the many threats of physical violence
I have repeatedly opposed threats of violence to you because of your (vacuous)
opinions.
> and challenges for trial by combat.
Not surprising if someone wants to fight you after the things you've said about
people. Calling someone a nazi is usually fight'n words.
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Nah. I don't hate you. I don't like you either. I've had no respect for you
>for a while now, iirc, about when you started blathering about how easy it is to
>take weapons away from people. I've been utterly contemptuous of you since you
>called me a bully. No greater insult for me.
well I've had no respect for you since I saw your bash tkd page, which
morally is absolutely no different than a Klansman putting up a web
site about how blacks are inferior solely based on _perceptions_ and
how well individuals fare in aptitude tests. Morally there is
absolutely no difference whatsover. Your site is prejudice, plain and
simple, and exists only to denigrate others and play to the dominant
crowd of style bashers. THAT would be what motivated my tagalong with
bullies characterization of you. And I still think it is an accurate
one. Actually, I restracted the bully comment and added the tagalong
qualifier, because you aren't cabable of being a bully. You were one
of those kids in school who followed bullies around toadying up to
them for acceptance and security. You stood by and laughed while the
bully kicked the weak kid. Do do exactly the same thing now.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
>
> well I've had no respect for you since I saw your bash tkd page, which
> morally is absolutely no different than a Klansman putting up a web
> site about how blacks are inferior solely based on _perceptions_ and
> how well individuals fare in aptitude tests. Morally there is
> absolutely no difference whatsover. Your site is prejudice, plain and
> simple, and exists only to denigrate others and play to the dominant
> crowd of style bashers.
That would be the one that starts off trying to answer frequently asked
question, "Why do so many people bash Tae Kwon Do" right?
hahahah What a goober you are.
> THAT would be what motivated my tagalong with
> bullies characterization of you. And I still think it is an accurate
> one.
Gee, look, hal's trying his hand at armchair psychology again! Yup. Still
couldn't find his butt with a flashlight and a map.
> Actually, I restracted the bully comment and added the tagalong
> qualifier, because you aren't cabable of being a bully. You were one
> of those kids in school who followed bullies around toadying up to
> them for acceptance and security. You stood by and laughed while the
> bully kicked the weak kid.
Yeah, except for the times when I stood up to the bully and forced him to switch
his attention from his victim to me. I remember two or three run ins with a
bully named Carlos.
> Do do exactly the same thing now.
How banal.
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>
>> well I've had no respect for you since I saw your bash tkd page, which
>> morally is absolutely no different than a Klansman putting up a web
>> site about how blacks are inferior solely based on _perceptions_ and
>> how well individuals fare in aptitude tests. Morally there is
>> absolutely no difference whatsover. Your site is prejudice, plain and
>> simple, and exists only to denigrate others and play to the dominant
>> crowd of style bashers.
>
>That would be the one that starts off trying to answer frequently asked
>question, "Why do so many people bash Tae Kwon Do" right?
Yep, and continued with a reenforcement of prejudice and ignorance.
You had an opportunity to do the right thing, and explain why there
are many misconceptions and bad impressions about a traditional
martial art, and analyse why a widespread TMA may have developed a bad
rep, and gone to help people understand that you should never judge an
individual based on prejudice and ignorance. But no, you didn't do
the right thing. You never do the right thing do you?
But you can change that. You can publically restract your pathetic
bash tkd page, and put up something accurate and non-prejudicial.
Bet you can't. Or won't, because I know you can if you wanted to.
>
>hahahah What a goober you are.
>
>
>> THAT would be what motivated my tagalong with
>> bullies characterization of you. And I still think it is an accurate
>> one.
>
>Gee, look, hal's trying his hand at armchair psychology again! Yup. Still
>couldn't find his butt with a flashlight and a map.
Oh, but I did find an insecure toady desperately striving for the
social acceptance in usenet that he can't find in real life . Hmmm ,
gee, go figure.
>
>
>> Actually, I restracted the bully comment and added the tagalong
>> qualifier, because you aren't cabable of being a bully. You were one
>> of those kids in school who followed bullies around toadying up to
>> them for acceptance and security. You stood by and laughed while the
>> bully kicked the weak kid.
>
>Yeah, except for the times when I stood up to the bully and forced him to switch
>his attention from his victim to me. I remember two or three run ins with a
>bully named Carlos.
OH right. As if I believe that any more than I believe that was
really your wife posting you actually got a blow job once.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> >That would be the one that starts off trying to answer frequently asked
> >question, "Why do so many people bash Tae Kwon Do" right?
>
> Yep, and continued with a reenforcement of prejudice and ignorance.
> You had an opportunity to do the right thing, and explain why there
> are many misconceptions and bad impressions about a traditional
> martial art, and analyse why a widespread TMA may have developed a bad
> rep, and gone to help people understand that you should never judge an
> individual based on prejudice and ignorance. But no, you didn't do
> the right thing. You never do the right thing do you?
That's because the point of the piece was not to defend TMAs but to explain why
TKD gets bashed. It did that admirably well without passing judgment.
> But you can change that.
I *could* write a new piece. But I have no desire to. It's not a commonly
asked question.
Besides, I've done that multiple times on RMA. I've got some of them saved.
For the rest, you can go fish.
> You can publically restract your pathetic
> bash tkd page,
Why on earth would I want to do that?
> and put up something accurate and non-prejudicial.
It's already there. Do you want the link?
> >Gee, look, hal's trying his hand at armchair psychology again! Yup. Still
> >couldn't find his butt with a flashlight and a map.
>
> Oh, but I did find an insecure toady desperately striving for the
> social acceptance in usenet that he can't find in real life . Hmmm ,
> gee, go figure.
Yeah, that'll work hal. Add on the "looking for social acceptance in usenet
that he can't find in real life" to your other failed prognostications. hahahah
> >Yeah, except for the times when I stood up to the bully and forced him to switch
> >his attention from his victim to me. I remember two or three run ins with a
> >bully named Carlos.
>
> OH right.
From your mouth to Gods ear (to quote a phrase).
> As if I believe that any more than I believe that was
> really your wife posting you actually got a blow job once.
<snort> Take that up with her.
h...@nospam.com
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
>> As if I believe that any more than I believe that was
>> really your wife posting you actually got a blow job once.
>
><snort> Take that up with her.
Yea, I did. I thought she was kinda frigid.
Hal
Kirk Lawson
> ><snort> Take that up with her.
>
> Yea, I did. I thought she was kinda frigid.
Yeah. She gets that way with pansies and limpwrists.
Randy
hey mr. Hal. how are you? i am fine. hate is a pretty strong word to
use and i am glad you dont hate because if you look at the word 'hate'
you will see that it has the word 'ate' in it and everyone knows that
you can only eat so much before you ate too much and then you are
full.
your friend
Randy
Eric Neale
> On 12 Nov 2003 20:51:16 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Um, "logical fallacies"? Not familiar with the term?
> >
> >
> >You have proved that you do not understand the concept.
>
> Oh, I understand the concept very well.
No you just over estimate yourself.
. . . Very, very well. If you have
> any questions let me know. I can link to to many interesting sites if
> you want.
As a mater of fact I do have questions. Why did you attack your
opponent's character? Why do you often change the subject when it
becomes obvious that your position is wrong?
>
> > You often use
> >fallacies in the very same post where you falsely accuse someone else
> >of doing so. It is comical.
>
> Name one, with the example of what I said, and explain why it would
> qualify. Please. I can't wait.
Why should I bother? I have named dozens and you never addressed
those. If I give you 20 chances you won't participate but now you
"can't wait"? LOL!
Fine I will name two. You used an Ad Hominim fallacy when you called
me a "bigot" when you could not justify doing so. When asked to
justify it you used a fallacy of circular reasoning when you stated
that because I was a bigot you could not explain why I was a bigot.
If you cannot establish that I am a bigot then how do you know I am
one?
>
> I've clearly identified some of yours.
>
No you have not. It is stupid. Many times you have clamed you found
one and when you droped a name it was obvious that you had no idea
what you were talking about.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >. . . I have had my imprisonment
> >> >> demanded,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >In response to your claim about someone else deserving it, *not*
> >> >because you are a liberal.
> >> >
> >> Some who is guilty deserves it. Fact is our prisons are full of
> >> people, most of whom insist on their innocence.
> >
> >
> >Yes, but that wasn't what you said that propted Kirk to adapt (IH) in
> >his sig. Your comments were very specific.
>
> It was the Gartin thread, and Kirk decided I was deserving
> imprisonment merely because I came out and stated that someone who has
> had that much trouble with the law was in most likelihood actually
> guilty of wrongdoing. For me it was his trial by combat and "a man
> above the a laws of men" web sites that clinched it for me.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >. . .threatened to be tarred and feathered,
> >> >
> >> >I believe that was in response to you abusing a 13 year old girl.
> >> >Yes, tar and feathering you would be a reasonable thing to do but it
> >> >isn't because you are a liberal.
> >>
> >> Um, no, that came long before that, and that wasn't a 13 year old
> >> girl, it was Trav.
> >
> >And I should belive this because . . .
> >
> >Even if it was Trav you still showed your true colors.
>
> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
Why should I believe it was Trav? You are a child abuser.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >. . . threats of violence
> >> >> against me, told to leave the country,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
> >> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
> >>
> >> No, I love my country.
> >
> >Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
>
> Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
> of it IS neocons and bigots.
There you go being a hypocrite again.
>
> >
> >
> >. . . What I am resist is self serving
> >> neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
> >> selfish interests.
> >
> >
> >Since that isn't happening you should have nothing to worry about.
>
> It could be.
No it isn't. Your political propaganga is slanted to the point of
abserdity.
. . . I has happened before. It could happen again.
> Political discourse is what helps to keep it from happening again.
> People like you who are against political discourse and condemn people
> for taking a non-popular stance are what allows it to happen again.
This is a lie. I am engaging in political discourse. You play games
and use dirty tricks to avoid admiting your mistakes were incorect. I
seek only to find the flaws in your claims and point them out.
Instead of dealing with that you attack. Why are words such a threat
to you?
>
> There's a nice appropriate quote that goes here. Need me to post it
> again? Its by a guy name George Santayana
An appropriate quote from you? That would be refreshing.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>As a mater of fact I do have questions. Why did you attack your
>opponent's character? Why do you often change the subject when it
>becomes obvious that your position is wrong?
I have never changed the subject, only tried to provide an expanded
and more complete explanation. Show me where you think I have.
>
>>
>> > You often use
>> >fallacies in the very same post where you falsely accuse someone else
>> >of doing so. It is comical.
>>
>> Name one, with the example of what I said, and explain why it would
>> qualify. Please. I can't wait.
>
>
>Why should I bother? I have named dozens and you never addressed
>those. If I give you 20 chances you won't participate but now you
>"can't wait"? LOL!
>
>Fine I will name two. You used an Ad Hominim fallacy when you called
>me a "bigot" when you could not justify doing so. When asked to
>justify it you used a fallacy of circular reasoning when you stated
>that because I was a bigot you could not explain why I was a bigot.
>If you cannot establish that I am a bigot then how do you know I am
>one?
Because you clearly took a stance of supporting your cultural group at
all cost regardless of right or wrong. Your stance on the war in Iraq
lead me to that conclusion.
>
>
>>
>> I've clearly identified some of yours.
>>
>No you have not. It is stupid. Many times you have clamed you found
>one and when you droped a name it was obvious that you had no idea
>what you were talking about.
Um, show me where. Your use of the argument of no civilization is an
extremist stance (straw man) rather than dealing with the argument
presented. Look it up. Your use of absurdly limited examples of
economic transactions while ignoring the big picture is also a
fallacy.
>> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
>
>
>Why should I believe it was Trav? You are a child abuser.
It was such an obvious troll. Get a clue.
Even assuming that it was actually a real female, then she was being
really, really stupid and giving out her actual identity and location,
she even sent her phone number to Kirk. I did her a favor by scaring
her away from a group of perverts.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >. . . threats of violence
>> >> >> against me, told to leave the country,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
>> >> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
>> >>
>> >> No, I love my country.
>> >
>> >Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
>>
>> Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
>> of it IS neocons and bigots.
>
>
>There you go being a hypocrite again.
Um what?
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >. . . What I am resist is self serving
>> >> neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
>> >> selfish interests.
>> >
>> >
>> >Since that isn't happening you should have nothing to worry about.
>>
>> It could be.
>
>
>No it isn't. Your political propaganga is slanted to the point of
>abserdity.
You don't keep up with the news much, do you?
>
>
>. . . I has happened before. It could happen again.
>> Political discourse is what helps to keep it from happening again.
>> People like you who are against political discourse and condemn people
>> for taking a non-popular stance are what allows it to happen again.
>
>
>This is a lie. I am engaging in political discourse. You play games
>and use dirty tricks to avoid admiting your mistakes were incorect.
Because you haven't proven anything yet. Anything at all.
> I
>seek only to find the flaws in your claims and point them out.
>Instead of dealing with that you attack. Why are words such a threat
>to you?
You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
where horribly flawed and illogical. I tried to explain that to you
and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
Question, how old are you? My guess would be you haven't even
graduated from high school. Am I close?
Hal
Eric Neale
> On 13 Nov 2003 17:59:03 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
> >As a mater of fact I do have questions. Why did you attack your
> >opponent's character? Why do you often change the subject when it
> >becomes obvious that your position is wrong?
>
> I have never changed the subject, only tried to provide an expanded
> and more complete explanation.
Well I no longer expect you to be honest about anything so this answer
does not disapoint me.
. . . . Show me where you think I have.
Why should I do that? So you can ignore them again? Since you won't
be honest there is no point to any of this. If you really want to
know do a search looking for posts where I said "changeing the
subject" or "change the subject".
> >>
> >> > You often use
> >> >fallacies in the very same post where you falsely accuse someone else
> >> >of doing so. It is comical.
> >>
> >> Name one, with the example of what I said, and explain why it would
> >> qualify. Please. I can't wait.
> >
> >
> >Why should I bother? I have named dozens and you never addressed
> >those. If I give you 20 chances you won't participate but now you
> >"can't wait"? LOL!
> >
> >Fine I will name two. You used an Ad Hominim fallacy when you called
> >me a "bigot" when you could not justify doing so. When asked to
> >justify it you used a fallacy of circular reasoning when you stated
> >that because I was a bigot you could not explain why I was a bigot.
> >If you cannot establish that I am a bigot then how do you know I am
> >one?
>
> Because you clearly took a stance of supporting your cultural group at
> all cost regardless of right or wrong. Your stance on the war in Iraq
> lead me to that conclusion.
Oh please. After weeks that is the best you can do? You still use
fallacies on a regular basis. Did you notice how your answer did not
deal with that issue? You use fallacies, I pointed it out and you
glossed over it.
> >>
> >> I've clearly identified some of yours.
> >>
> >No you have not. It is stupid. Many times you have clamed you found
> >one and when you droped a name it was obvious that you had no idea
> >what you were talking about.
>
> Um, show me where. Your use of the argument of no civilization is an
> extremist stance (straw man)
Look Hal. If you want to pretend that words have special meanings
that only you understand then is fine but remember that it cannot
apply to the way everyone else communicates. You simply do not
understand what everyone else means by the term "straw man". Your
argument that we should not create wealth because we are stealing from
future generations lead to a new question: "Well what would happen if
some generation would stop stealing from future generations?" It is
not a fallacy to follow theories to their consequenses. That is not
what "straw man" means. You clearly do not know what a straw man
fallacy is because you often accuse people of taking a stupid position
they in fact did not take. That is the difference between what I am
doing and what you do. You really did say wealth cannot be created.
I didn't make that up. You really did say that Earth is a closed
system. I didn't make that up either. You really did say that you
can't explain why I am a bigot *because* I am a bigot. You really did
make those perposterous claims. Now *if* you had never said them and
I accused you of it and then attacked those ideas *then* I would be
using a straw man fallacy.
. . .rather than dealing with the argument
> presented. Look it up. Your use of absurdly limited examples of
> economic transactions while ignoring the big picture is also a
> fallacy.
Please. I have provided dozens of examples. We can cover any area
you like. Every place we have looked we found that wealth can be
created yet you still hold on to your belief that it cannot happen and
you offer up no reason for us to believe you. You even quoted a
dictionary that used my definition of wealth which must be false for
your theory to be true. The way you wiggle around implies that you
know you are wrong.
Why should we belive that wealth cannot be created? What is the
reason?
> >> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
> >
> >
> >Why should I believe it was Trav? You are a child abuser.
>
> It was such an obvious troll. Get a clue.
So once again you verbaly abused someone and you cannot justify what
you did.
>
> Even assuming that it was actually a real female, then she was being
> really, really stupid and giving out her actual identity and location,
> she even sent her phone number to Kirk. I did her a favor by scaring
> her away from a group of perverts.
>
You actions make you a monster. It's some 13 year old girl's fault
she bumped into you on the net and the way you abuse her is doing her
a favor? Yet just a few posts ago you were complaining about how
people are unkind to you on the net. People who treat you that way
are bigots but you treating a little girl that way is a favor. Sounds
to me like you have an anti-social personality.
> >> >> >. . . threats of violence
> >> >> >> against me, told to leave the country,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
> >> >> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I love my country.
> >> >
> >> >Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
> >>
> >> Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
> >> of it IS neocons and bigots.
> >
> >
> >There you go being a hypocrite again.
>
> Um what?
>
Hypocracy is your central characteristic. You don't like yourself so
you get on the net and rant about what you hate about yourself but you
project those traits onto others. e.g. you rant about how someone
commited a certin fallacy (when they didn't) and you commit that very
fallacy several in the exact same post.
> >> >
> >> >. . . What I am resist is self serving
> >> >> neo-conservatives destroying it and everything else for their own
> >> >> selfish interests.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Since that isn't happening you should have nothing to worry about.
> >>
> >> It could be.
> >
> >
> >No it isn't. Your political propaganga is slanted to the point of
> >abserdity.
>
> You don't keep up with the news much, do you?
>
Wrong again.
> >
> >
> >. . . I has happened before. It could happen again.
> >> Political discourse is what helps to keep it from happening again.
> >> People like you who are against political discourse and condemn people
> >> for taking a non-popular stance are what allows it to happen again.
> >
> >
> >This is a lie. I am engaging in political discourse. You play games
> >and use dirty tricks to avoid admiting your mistakes were incorect.
>
> Because you haven't proven anything yet. Anything at all.
>
If you won't be honest then what point is there in this conversation?
> > I
> >seek only to find the flaws in your claims and point them out.
> >Instead of dealing with that you attack. Why are words such a threat
> >to you?
>
> You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
> where horribly flawed and illogical.
Can you be honest?
. . . I tried to explain that to you
> and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
> me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
I am starting to think your are reality challenged.
> Question, how old are you? My guess would be you haven't even
> graduated from high school. Am I close?
Just like all your other ideas, this one is not even close to being
right either.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>> Um, show me where. Your use of the argument of no civilization is an
>> extremist stance (straw man)
>
>
>Look Hal. If you want to pretend that words have special meanings
>that only you understand then is fine but remember that it cannot
>apply to the way everyone else communicates. You simply do not
>understand what everyone else means by the term "straw man".
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
"Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument
they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into
somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't
actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled
version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument
would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because
everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false
because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr.
Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued,
say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save.
The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not
imply that the policy itself is wrong. "
> Your
>argument that we should not create wealth because we are stealing from
>future generations lead to a new question: "Well what would happen if
>some generation would stop stealing from future generations?"
That was not what you said. The example you used was that if previous
generations did not take resources we would not have a civilization
"But is the impact greater than the value of the civilization that
created it? Assume the civilization that grew the corn is the one
that must bear the cost down the road. Are we less wealthy today
because humans survived the last 5000 years than we would be if humans
became extinct?"
> It is
>not a fallacy to follow theories to their consequenses. That is not
>what "straw man" means.
It is if you carry it to an extreme consequence, which is what you
did.
> You clearly do not know what a straw man
>fallacy is because you often accuse people of taking a stupid position
>they in fact did not take. That is the difference between what I am
>doing and what you do. You really did say wealth cannot be created.
Yep. First thing you said correct.
>I didn't make that up. You really did say that Earth is a closed
>system. I didn't make that up either.
Yep. Said that too. Earth IS a closed system. I posted the links to
highly respected research instituttions which agreed and explained
why. As I said, _energy doesn't count_.
> You really did say that you
>can't explain why I am a bigot *because* I am a bigot.
You exhibit the characteristics of a bigot. The fact that you are
going on and on about it proves I was right. If you really thought I
was wrong you would just blow it off.
> You really did
>make those perposterous claims. Now *if* you had never said them and
>I accused you of it and then attacked those ideas *then* I would be
>using a straw man fallacy.
Um, what?
>
>
>. . .rather than dealing with the argument
>> presented. Look it up. Your use of absurdly limited examples of
>> economic transactions while ignoring the big picture is also a
>> fallacy.
>
>
>Please. I have provided dozens of examples. We can cover any area
>you like. Every place we have looked we found that wealth can be
>created yet you still hold on to your belief that it cannot happen and
>you offer up no reason for us to believe you. You even quoted a
>dictionary that used my definition of wealth which must be false for
>your theory to be true. The way you wiggle around implies that you
>know you are wrong.
>
>Why should we belive that wealth cannot be created? What is the
>reason?
Because any model you've used disregards inputs into your system.
I've explained that and you ignored it. There is always a source of
material goods outside of your model. Always.
>
>
>> >> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
>> >
>> >
>> >Why should I believe it was Trav? You are a child abuser.
>>
>> It was such an obvious troll. Get a clue.
>
>
>So once again you verbaly abused someone and you cannot justify what
>you did.
Waaa. Geez. This is rma sonny. Can't stand the heat, get out of the
fucking kitchen.
>
>>
>> Even assuming that it was actually a real female, then she was being
>> really, really stupid and giving out her actual identity and location,
>> she even sent her phone number to Kirk. I did her a favor by scaring
>> her away from a group of perverts.
>>
>
>You actions make you a monster. It's some 13 year old girl's fault
>she bumped into you on the net and the way you abuse her is doing her
>a favor? Yet just a few posts ago you were complaining about how
>people are unkind to you on the net. People who treat you that way
>are bigots but you treating a little girl that way is a favor. Sounds
>to me like you have an anti-social personality.
Perhaps. I am one of the least anti-social personalities here,
however. Do you follow any other threads at all? I am the moderate
pacifist, remember?
>
>
>> >> >> >. . . threats of violence
>> >> >> >> against me, told to leave the country,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
>> >> >> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I love my country.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
>> >>
>> >> Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
>> >> of it IS neocons and bigots.
>> >
>> >
>> >There you go being a hypocrite again.
>>
>> Um what?
>>
>
>Hypocracy is your central characteristic. You don't like yourself so
>you get on the net and rant about what you hate about yourself but you
>project those traits onto others. e.g. you rant about how someone
>commited a certin fallacy (when they didn't) and you commit that very
>fallacy several in the exact same post.
Um, what?
>> Because you haven't proven anything yet. Anything at all.
>>
>
>If you won't be honest then what point is there in this conversation?
I have been honest. Repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your
argument. You disregarded then, only to present another highly flawed
example. On the other hand, there was stuff like Kirk claiming
meteorites proved the Earth wasn't a closed system. Almost too funny
to even believe someone said, yet you let that one pass by. Perhaps
you are that dumb too.
>
>
>> > I
>> >seek only to find the flaws in your claims and point them out.
>> >Instead of dealing with that you attack. Why are words such a threat
>> >to you?
>>
>> You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
>> where horribly flawed and illogical.
>
>Can you be honest?
Better than you.
>
>
>. . . I tried to explain that to you
>> and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
>> me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
>
>
>I am starting to think your are reality challenged.
I am finally realizing you are either a moron or a troll. Either way
I am done with you.
Hal
GODSTAR
> >Which arts do you consider as having been formulated as a scam on the
> >unsuspecting populace?
> TKD. SCARS.
Funny your theory supports TKD... Its almost all sparring.. in fact
most classes teach exactly what works in their randori and you train
only for their sparring and sport...
> GreenoNOCARRIERNOCARRIENOCARRIER
Eric Neale
> On 14 Nov 2003 13:20:01 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
> >> Um, show me where. Your use of the argument of no civilization is an
> >> extremist stance (straw man)
> >
> >
> >Look Hal. If you want to pretend that words have special meanings
> >that only you understand then is fine but remember that it cannot
> >apply to the way everyone else communicates. You simply do not
> >understand what everyone else means by the term "straw man".
>
> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
>
> "Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
> version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument
> they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into
> somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't
> actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled
> version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument
> would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because
> everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false
> because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr.
> Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued,
> say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save.
> The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not
> imply that the policy itself is wrong. "
>
I am glad you found a definition. Now if you study this and learn
what it means you might be able to become a better writer.
>
> > Your
> >argument that we should not create wealth because we are stealing from
> >future generations lead to a new question: "Well what would happen if
> >some generation would stop stealing from future generations?"
>
> That was not what you said. The example you used was that if previous
> generations did not take resources we would not have a civilization
>
It is the exact same question. You argued that growing corn is
stealing from future generations. Yet if you don't grow corn how will
there be future generations? Hal you painted yourself into a corner
and left no escape. It is not a fallacy to point out that all your
claims lead to a contradiction.
> "But is the impact greater than the value of the civilization that
> created it? Assume the civilization that grew the corn is the one
> that must bear the cost down the road. Are we less wealthy today
> because humans survived the last 5000 years than we would be if humans
> became extinct?"
>
>
> > It is
> >not a fallacy to follow theories to their consequenses. That is not
> >what "straw man" means.
>
> It is if you carry it to an extreme consequence, which is what you
> did.
Not if those are the consequences of the actual argument you made. I
can't help it if you take a stance that has an extreme consequence.
Perhaps you should think about your ideas before you write them. You
really did claim that growing corn is stealing from future
generations. Same deal with raising a herd of cattle. You should
stop taking positions that are extreem. What would happen if people
stoped growing food? The population of humans expands as our food
supply does. If we were to suddenly cut that food supply by not
farming then what do you think would happen? Would future generations
be glad we stoped stealing from them?
>
> > You clearly do not know what a straw man
> >fallacy is because you often accuse people of taking a stupid position
> >they in fact did not take. That is the difference between what I am
> >doing and what you do. You really did say wealth cannot be created.
>
> Yep. First thing you said correct.
Again with the lies. Hal, what you agree with is not the same thing
as what is correct.
>
> >I didn't make that up. You really did say that Earth is a closed
> >system. I didn't make that up either.
>
> Yep. Said that too. Earth IS a closed system. I posted the links to
> highly respected research instituttions which agreed and explained
> why. As I said, _energy doesn't count_.
Well if now you willing to exclude energy then I will let it slide. I
am sick of that topic and will give you a pat on the back for the
progress you have made. I am glad you have changed your position.
>
> > You really did say that you
> >can't explain why I am a bigot *because* I am a bigot.
>
> You exhibit the characteristics of a bigot. The fact that you are
> going on and on about it proves I was right. If you really thought I
> was wrong you would just blow it off.
This is they type of thinking that caused the Salem Witch Trials. If
they protest then it must be true. Trav had already pointed out why
this is false. Odd how you cling to it.
> > You really did
> >make those perposterous claims. Now *if* you had never said them and
> >I accused you of it and then attacked those ideas *then* I would be
> >using a straw man fallacy.
>
> Um, what?
Go back to the source you quoted and read it again. I have to change
your argument into something it is not to use a straw man fallacy.
That is what they mean by "version". Looking at the results of the
ideas you present is not a fallacy.
>
> >
> >
> >. . .rather than dealing with the argument
> >> presented. Look it up. Your use of absurdly limited examples of
> >> economic transactions while ignoring the big picture is also a
> >> fallacy.
> >
> >
> >Please. I have provided dozens of examples. We can cover any area
> >you like. Every place we have looked we found that wealth can be
> >created yet you still hold on to your belief that it cannot happen and
> >you offer up no reason for us to believe you. You even quoted a
> >dictionary that used my definition of wealth which must be false for
> >your theory to be true. The way you wiggle around implies that you
> >know you are wrong.
> >
> >Why should we belive that wealth cannot be created? What is the
> >reason?
>
> Because any model you've used disregards inputs into your system.
So? I cannot provide an example that includes everybody on the
planet. I guess for you that wouldn't be enough because you want to
include future generations so How could I create an example that
includes everyone who ever was or ever will be human? It is rediculus
for you to expect that.
Every example showed wealth was created. You offered no reason to
think it is not. Dissmising my examples does not automaticaly mean
your idea is true.
> I've explained that and you ignored it. There is always a source of
> material goods outside of your model. Always.
So? Why should we believe wealth cannot be created? You never
offered a reason. Shooting down my examples is not a reason to
believe your idea.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> Yea, calling Trav a cunt. Bad, bad me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Why should I believe it was Trav? You are a child abuser.
> >>
> >> It was such an obvious troll. Get a clue.
> >
> >
> >So once again you verbaly abused someone and you cannot justify what
> >you did.
>
> Waaa. Geez. This is rma sonny. Can't stand the heat, get out of the
> fucking kitchen.
Is that the attitude you have toward all the 13 year old girls you
abuse? You protest so by your own reasoning you must be guilty.
> >> Even assuming that it was actually a real female, then she was being
> >> really, really stupid and giving out her actual identity and location,
> >> she even sent her phone number to Kirk. I did her a favor by scaring
> >> her away from a group of perverts.
> >>
> >
> >You actions make you a monster. It's some 13 year old girl's fault
> >she bumped into you on the net and the way you abuse her is doing her
> >a favor? Yet just a few posts ago you were complaining about how
> >people are unkind to you on the net. People who treat you that way
> >are bigots but you treating a little girl that way is a favor. Sounds
> >to me like you have an anti-social personality.
>
> Perhaps. I am one of the least anti-social personalities here,
> however. Do you follow any other threads at all? I am the moderate
> pacifist, remember?
LOL - that is a good one.
> >> >> >> >. . . threats of violence
> >> >> >> >> against me, told to leave the country,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >In response for your hatred of so much of your country - not because
> >> >> >> >you are a liberal. There seems to be a patern here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, I love my country.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not a large part of it. You call them Neo-conservatives and bigots.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, a large part
> >> >> of it IS neocons and bigots.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >There you go being a hypocrite again.
> >>
> >> Um what?
> >>
> >
> >Hypocracy is your central characteristic. You don't like yourself so
> >you get on the net and rant about what you hate about yourself but you
> >project those traits onto others. e.g. you rant about how someone
> >commited a certin fallacy (when they didn't) and you commit that very
> >fallacy several in the exact same post.
>
> Um, what?
>
>
> >> Because you haven't proven anything yet. Anything at all.
> >>
> >
> >If you won't be honest then what point is there in this conversation?
>
> I have been honest. Repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your
> argument. You disregarded then, only to present another highly flawed
You are reality challenged. Get help.
> example. On the other hand, there was stuff like Kirk claiming
> meteorites proved the Earth wasn't a closed system. Almost too funny
> to even believe someone said, yet you let that one pass by. Perhaps
> you are that dumb too.
>
I won't disagree with Kirk when I think he is right. Current theory
is that Earth is a collection of meteorites. The planet is a gravety
well and apart from our intevention the mater that reaches Earth never
leaves.
> >
> >
> >> > I
> >> >seek only to find the flaws in your claims and point them out.
> >> >Instead of dealing with that you attack. Why are words such a threat
> >> >to you?
> >>
> >> You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
> >> where horribly flawed and illogical.
> >
> >Can you be honest?
>
> Better than you.
Bwhahahaha. Hal you have a reputation here on RMA and you have earned
it.
>
> >
> >
> >. . . I tried to explain that to you
> >> and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
> >> me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
> >
> >
> >I am starting to think your are reality challenged.
>
> I am finally realizing you are either a moron or a troll. Either way
> I am done with you.
>
> Hal
Poor Hal. His ideas don't add up and he blames others for not taking
him seriously.
Alan Connor
>
> It is the exact same question. You argued that growing corn is
> stealing from future generations. Yet if you don't grow corn how will
> there be future generations? Hal you painted yourself into a corner
> and left no escape. It is not a fallacy to point out that all your
> claims lead to a contradiction.
>
Eric, Hal never said anything like that.
Will you just get it through your head that some of us have rejected
your values? (Your *real* values, not the ones you SAY you hold -
actions speak louder than words.)
We reject your authority and cannot be bullied into goose-stepping with
you.
Some of us take this rejection farther than others.
I choose to belong to a group engaged in a 99.9% boycott of the
Industrial-Capitalist-Empire.
And to wipe my ass with the Constitution you parade for the suckers:
Your REAL Constitution is un-bridled greed and rapacity and the world
domination by violence necessary to fulfill it.
After all, you USE UP resources at an incredible rate, don't you? So
you have to acquire new ones....And someone lives everywhere, don't
they?
Then there's the little matter of having millions and millions of
people in your culture that do nothing but sit on their fat asses and
shuffle papers and run their mouths.
SOMEONE has to be growing their food and mining and manufacturing and
transporting all the stuff they need to live as they do.
If you are consuming more than you produce, then SOMEONE(s) is
producing more than they consume. DUH.
Now we get to the little matter of all the Progressive
Environmentalists who want to save THEIR pretty forests and rivers and
meadows and marshes.
But they are still consuming as much anyone else, aren't they? So whose
forests and rivers and meadows and marshes get trashed?
The ones in someone else's country, of course. Just coincidentally
countries that have no chance of standing up to the American Gangsters
and all their viscious toys.
--
Alan C this post ends with w
q
Robert Low
>> >unsuspecting populace?
>> TKD. SCARS.
>Funny your theory supports TKD... Its almost all sparring.. in fact
>most classes teach exactly what works in their randori and you train
>only for their sparring and sport...
In a school that specialises in that, yes; and a lot of
it will be pretty heavy contact sparring, too. (Of course,
there's so much variety in tkd out there that some schools will
do almost no sparring at all, but spend all the time
on line work and patterns.)
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Eric Neale
> On 15 Nov 2003 11:27:37 -0800, Eric Neale <calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is the exact same question. You argued that growing corn is
> > stealing from future generations. Yet if you don't grow corn how will
> > there be future generations? Hal you painted yourself into a corner
> > and left no escape. It is not a fallacy to point out that all your
> > claims lead to a contradiction.
> >
>
> Eric, Hal never said anything like that.
Sep 4 2003 in the "Re: hal doesn't know about metors either (was: Re:
Looking for liberals? Follow brains)" thread
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0krelv4biov3l77v6...@4ax.com...
"That there is a price to pay by someone, somewhere, for
accumulating
wealth. You see, my contention is that it is impossible to create
wealth. It is transfered from someone, from somewhere. This
subthread was in response to Kirks absurd assertion that "well what
about growing plants"? Claiming nothing was lost there, and that
the
wealth came from (was created) the sunlight. That is not true.
Nothing comes from the sunlight except the energy providing the
means
for performing the conversion. The plants come from the soil,
water,
and air, therefore wealth is taken out of the ground and converted
for
our use. The earth is diminished. The price is paid by someone,
even
future generations. Get it yet?
Hal"
So Hal really did make this argument. If you grow a plant, any plant,
you are stealing from future generations. He didn't think ahead that
maybe you were growing plants to feed your kids who will grow up to be
the ancestors of those future generations. Opps.
Now months later he wants to cry about it when someone points out that
his ideas do not add up.
>
> Will you just get it through your head that some of us have rejected
> your values?
I figured that out over 20 years ago. This isn't about values.
(Your *real* values, not the ones you SAY you hold -
> actions speak louder than words.)
>
> We reject your authority and cannot be bullied into goose-stepping with
> you.
>
Authority? What are you talking about?
> Some of us take this rejection farther than others.
>
> I choose to belong to a group engaged in a 99.9% boycott of the
> Industrial-Capitalist-Empire.
>
> And to wipe my ass with the Constitution you parade for the suckers:
>
> Your REAL Constitution is un-bridled greed and rapacity and the world
> domination by violence necessary to fulfill it.
I can see why you and Hal get along so well. You have so much in
common.
>
> After all, you USE UP resources at an incredible rate, don't you? So
> you have to acquire new ones....And someone lives everywhere, don't
> they?
>
> Then there's the little matter of having millions and millions of
> people in your culture that do nothing but sit on their fat asses and
> shuffle papers and run their mouths.
>
> SOMEONE has to be growing their food and mining and manufacturing and
> transporting all the stuff they need to live as they do.
>
> If you are consuming more than you produce, then SOMEONE(s) is
> producing more than they consume. DUH.
Everyone consumes more than they produce at some point in their life.
>
> Now we get to the little matter of all the Progressive
> Environmentalists who want to save THEIR pretty forests and rivers and
> meadows and marshes.
>
> But they are still consuming as much anyone else, aren't they? So whose
> forests and rivers and meadows and marshes get trashed?
>
> The ones in someone else's country, of course. Just coincidentally
> countries that have no chance of standing up to the American Gangsters
> and all their viscious toys.
Thanks for sharing.
Alan Connor
You don't like his point so you play lawyer's games with words when he
gets a little sloppy.
All wealth comes from labor turning natural resources into trade goods.
And too much wealth creation depletes natural resources and damages
the planet and these surely harm future generations.
>
>>
>> Will you just get it through your head that some of us have rejected
>> your values?
>
> I figured that out over 20 years ago. This isn't about values.
>
Yes it is. Everything is about values in the final analysis.
>
> (Your *real* values, not the ones you SAY you hold -
>> actions speak louder than words.)
>>
>> We reject your authority and cannot be bullied into goose-stepping with
>> you.
>>
>
> Authority? What are you talking about?
>
>
Your laws.
>> Some of us take this rejection farther than others.
>>
>> I choose to belong to a group engaged in a 99.9% boycott of the
>> Industrial-Capitalist-Empire.
>>
>> And to wipe my ass with the Constitution you parade for the suckers:
>>
>> Your REAL Constitution is un-bridled greed and rapacity and the world
>> domination by violence necessary to fulfill it.
>
> I can see why you and Hal get along so well. You have so much in
> common.
>
He's a novice. I'm a graduate. He's learning to do what I have already
done.
>>
>> After all, you USE UP resources at an incredible rate, don't you? So
>> you have to acquire new ones....And someone lives everywhere, don't
>> they?
>>
>> Then there's the little matter of having millions and millions of
>> people in your culture that do nothing but sit on their fat asses and
>> shuffle papers and run their mouths.
>>
>> SOMEONE has to be growing their food and mining and manufacturing and
>> transporting all the stuff they need to live as they do.
>>
>> If you are consuming more than you produce, then SOMEONE(s) is
>> producing more than they consume. DUH.
>
> Everyone consumes more than they produce at some point in their life.
>
Irrelevant, and you now it.
>
>>
>> Now we get to the little matter of all the Progressive
>> Environmentalists who want to save THEIR pretty forests and rivers and
>> meadows and marshes.
>>
>> But they are still consuming as much anyone else, aren't they? So whose
>> forests and rivers and meadows and marshes get trashed?
>>
>> The ones in someone else's country, of course. Just coincidentally
>> countries that have no chance of standing up to the American Gangsters
>> and all their viscious toys.
>
>
> Thanks for sharing.
You too.
Remember: anyone who disagrees with you and your associates must be
crazy.
Eric Neale
What happened to "Eric, Hal never said anything like that"? Why
didn't he just say "My bad, I goofed" and let it go instead of
clinging to those words ever since? He has been defending them for
months. All the while Hal has been attacking others for not accepting
his fallacies. He has even been braging about his victory in this
debate.
I don't like the fact that he didn't make a point.
> All wealth comes from labor turning natural resources into trade goods.
>
Not exactly.
> And too much wealth creation depletes natural resources and damages
> the planet and these surely harm future generations.
>
It does not have to be that way, and the debate was never about how
much wealth should we create. We can always agree (hypotheticaly) to
not use too many natural resources. Then we would be making wealth
without doing excessive harm to future generations. Now 5 billion
people will not all make that choice at once. I am merly trying to
point out that we have the option if we would all agree. The way it
works in the real world is that a culture goes from pre-industry to
industry and from industy which produces much polution to High-tech
which is where we start to see conservation and polution controls. I
expect that as a civilization's technology progresses they will learn
to live cleaner. Technology increases their ability to prevent
polution and their motivation to do so.
> >
> >>
> >> Will you just get it through your head that some of us have rejected
> >> your values?
> >
> > I figured that out over 20 years ago. This isn't about values.
> >
>
> Yes it is. Everything is about values in the final analysis.
Yet next you talk about my authority and how I bully people into
goose-stepping. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you
trying to say that I value reason and Hal rejects that value?
>
> >
> > (Your *real* values, not the ones you SAY you hold -
> >> actions speak louder than words.)
> >>
> >> We reject your authority and cannot be bullied into goose-stepping with
> >> you.
> >>
> >
> > Authority? What are you talking about?
> >
> >
>
> Your laws.
>
But that isn't my personal authority. I have never passed a law. Is
everything you write poetic?
> >> Some of us take this rejection farther than others.
> >>
> >> I choose to belong to a group engaged in a 99.9% boycott of the
> >> Industrial-Capitalist-Empire.
> >>
> >> And to wipe my ass with the Constitution you parade for the suckers:
> >>
> >> Your REAL Constitution is un-bridled greed and rapacity and the world
> >> domination by violence necessary to fulfill it.
> >
> > I can see why you and Hal get along so well. You have so much in
> > common.
> >
>
> He's a novice. I'm a graduate. He's learning to do what I have already
> done.
>
Yes. I agree that he is perfect for your program. He is exactly what
you are looking for.
> >>
> >> After all, you USE UP resources at an incredible rate, don't you? So
> >> you have to acquire new ones....And someone lives everywhere, don't
> >> they?
> >>
> >> Then there's the little matter of having millions and millions of
> >> people in your culture that do nothing but sit on their fat asses and
> >> shuffle papers and run their mouths.
> >>
> >> SOMEONE has to be growing their food and mining and manufacturing and
> >> transporting all the stuff they need to live as they do.
> >>
> >> If you are consuming more than you produce, then SOMEONE(s) is
> >> producing more than they consume. DUH.
> >
> > Everyone consumes more than they produce at some point in their life.
> >
>
> Irrelevant, and you now it.
>
>
No. Most of the time I can't figure out why you say something or what
you are talking about. You seem to talk in riddles. Perhaps my
comment is irrelevant to what your meaning but I have no idea why.
<snip>
> Remember: anyone who disagrees with you and your associates must be
> crazy.
Now why would you add that? I can happily disagree with many people.
Heck I hold some mighty strange veiws so most people disagree with me
about something. People are not crazy *because* they disagree.
Alan Connor
I don't know, and judging from your other posts, see no reason to take
your word for the above.
But it doesn't matter.
It's truth that matters, not lame personality games.
> I don't like the fact that he didn't make a point.
>
>
>> All wealth comes from labor turning natural resources into trade goods.
>>
>
> Not exactly.
>
Yes. Exactly.
>
>> And too much wealth creation depletes natural resources and damages
>> the planet and these surely harm future generations.
>>
>
> It does not have to be that way,
Yes it does.
> and the debate was never about how
> much wealth should we create.
So what? Are you interested in truth or something else.
We can always agree (hypotheticaly) to
> not use too many natural resources. Then we would be making wealth
> without doing excessive harm to future generations.
Impossible. Wishful thinking. You must be an 'environmentalist'.
Now 5 billion
> people will not all make that choice at once. I am merly trying to
> point out that we have the option if we would all agree.
You don't have the option to do impossible things.
The way it
> works in the real world is that a culture goes from pre-industry to
> industry and from industy which produces much polution to High-tech
> which is where we start to see conservation and polution controls.
Hi-tech is CALLED hi-tech because it has more production steps. It
does more harm to the environment than lo-tech industry.
And it is still, of course, industry. Worse than any that came before.
Those "pollution controls" are usually an illusion, with the damage
being exported rather than prevented.
And they have done nothing to slow down the rate at which the global
ecosystem is being ravaged.
Material wealth is created from natural resources by labor.
That's it.
You can't have your planet and eat it too. Although the so-called
'environmentalists' would like you to think so.
But they don't tell you that recycling paper does as much harm to
the environment as making new paper does, do they?
Or that every year since the first Earth Day, more of the planet has
been trashed than the year before.
(30+ years of satellite images do not lie. See the WWFs "Living
Planet" series of studies, for one.)
Alan C
Eric Neale
<snip>
> It's truth that matters, not lame personality games.
Well if nothing else at least we can agree on this.
<snip>
> We can always agree (hypotheticaly) to
> > not use too many natural resources. Then we would be making wealth
> > without doing excessive harm to future generations.
>
> Impossible. Wishful thinking. You must be an 'environmentalist'.
I honestly think that is the worst thing that has ever been said about
me on RMA. That is including Gichokes standard "I banged your mom"
insult too. I'm not offended but I do find it ironic.
>
> Now 5 billion
> > people will not all make that choice at once. I am merly trying to
> > point out that we have the option if we would all agree.
>
> You don't have the option to do impossible things.
Are you saying that there is someone alive today that could not chose
to do what you have done? Have you not decided to live in harmony
with earth? Couldn't any one else do it too or is something
preventing them from figuring it out and making that choice? Couldn't
we all do it if we wanted to?
>
> The way it
> > works in the real world is that a culture goes from pre-industry to
> > industry and from industy which produces much polution to High-tech
> > which is where we start to see conservation and polution controls.
>
> Hi-tech is CALLED hi-tech because it has more production steps. It
> does more harm to the environment than lo-tech industry.
>
> And it is still, of course, industry. Worse than any that came before.
>
> Those "pollution controls" are usually an illusion, with the damage
> being exported rather than prevented.
>
Are you including solar power in that too? If we could make solar
power effective do you still hold to your statement?
(And yes I know it is beyond us today but sending men to the moon was
beyond humanity's power at one point too so I am assuming we develop
the technology for this.)
> And they have done nothing to slow down the rate at which the global
> ecosystem is being ravaged.
>
>
> Material wealth is created from natural resources by labor.
>
> That's it.
>
> You can't have your planet and eat it too. Although the so-called
> 'environmentalists' would like you to think so.
>
> But they don't tell you that recycling paper does as much harm to
> the environment as making new paper does, do they?
>
> Or that every year since the first Earth Day, more of the planet has
> been trashed than the year before.
>
> (30+ years of satellite images do not lie. See the WWFs "Living
> Planet" series of studies, for one.)
I love your take on Environmentalism. Looks like we have some general
agreement there too.
Eric Neale
<snip>
> It's truth that matters, not lame personality games.
Well if nothing else at least we can agree on this.
<snip>
> We can always agree (hypotheticaly) to
> > not use too many natural resources. Then we would be making wealth
> > without doing excessive harm to future generations.
>
> Impossible. Wishful thinking. You must be an 'environmentalist'.
I honestly think that is the worst thing that has ever been said about
me on RMA. That is including Gichokes standard "I banged your mom"
insult too. I'm not offended but I do find it ironic.
>
> Now 5 billion
> > people will not all make that choice at once. I am merly trying to
> > point out that we have the option if we would all agree.
>
> You don't have the option to do impossible things.
Are you saying that there is someone alive today that could not chose
to do what you have done? Have you not decided to live in harmony
with earth? Couldn't any one else do it too or is something
preventing them from figuring it out and making that choice? Couldn't
we all do it if we wanted to?
>
> The way it
> > works in the real world is that a culture goes from pre-industry to
> > industry and from industy which produces much polution to High-tech
> > which is where we start to see conservation and polution controls.
>
> Hi-tech is CALLED hi-tech because it has more production steps. It
> does more harm to the environment than lo-tech industry.
>
> And it is still, of course, industry. Worse than any that came before.
>
> Those "pollution controls" are usually an illusion, with the damage
> being exported rather than prevented.
>
Are you including solar power in that too? If we could make solar
power effective do you still hold to your statement?
(And yes I know it is beyond us today but sending men to the moon was
beyond humanity's power at one point too so I am assuming we develop
the technology for this.)
> And they have done nothing to slow down the rate at which the global
> ecosystem is being ravaged.
>
>
> Material wealth is created from natural resources by labor.
>
> That's it.
>
> You can't have your planet and eat it too. Although the so-called
> 'environmentalists' would like you to think so.
>
> But they don't tell you that recycling paper does as much harm to
> the environment as making new paper does, do they?
>
> Or that every year since the first Earth Day, more of the planet has
> been trashed than the year before.
>
> (30+ years of satellite images do not lie. See the WWFs "Living
> Planet" series of studies, for one.)
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
>
><snip>
>> It's truth that matters, not lame personality games.
>
> Well if nothing else at least we can agree on this.
>
><snip>
>> We can always agree (hypotheticaly) to
>> > not use too many natural resources. Then we would be making wealth
>> > without doing excessive harm to future generations.
>>
>> Impossible. Wishful thinking. You must be an 'environmentalist'.
>
> I honestly think that is the worst thing that has ever been said about
> me on RMA. That is including Gichokes standard "I banged your mom"
> insult too. I'm not offended but I do find it ironic.
>
>
>>
>> Now 5 billion
>> > people will not all make that choice at once. I am merly trying to
>> > point out that we have the option if we would all agree.
>>
>> You don't have the option to do impossible things.
>
> Are you saying that there is someone alive today that could not chose
> to do what you have done? Have you not decided to live in harmony
> with earth? Couldn't any one else do it too or is something
> preventing them from figuring it out and making that choice? Couldn't
> we all do it if we wanted to?
>
Oh. Of course. I misunderstood you. But we have little wealth in the
material sense, which is what I thought you were referring to.
>
>>
>> The way it
>> > works in the real world is that a culture goes from pre-industry to
>> > industry and from industy which produces much polution to High-tech
>> > which is where we start to see conservation and polution controls.
>>
>> Hi-tech is CALLED hi-tech because it has more production steps. It
>> does more harm to the environment than lo-tech industry.
>>
>> And it is still, of course, industry. Worse than any that came before.
>>
>> Those "pollution controls" are usually an illusion, with the damage
>> being exported rather than prevented.
>>
> Are you including solar power in that too? If we could make solar
> power effective do you still hold to your statement?
Take a look at what has to be done to the planet to make solar power
a reality for eveyone on it.
Solar cells are semi-conductor devices, which use some of the nastiest
high-order petroleum-based chemicals in existence, just for starters.
Then there's those wonderful batteries.....
Passive solar, locally created, has its uses, absolutely.
>
> (And yes I know it is beyond us today but sending men to the moon was
> beyond humanity's power at one point too so I am assuming we develop
> the technology for this.)
>
Techonology/Insustry is always promising wonderful things to come. And
all of these "wonderful things" do one heck of a lot of damage to
the planet.
No stuff to sell, no money/jobs....
Running out of time....
>
>
>
>> And they have done nothing to slow down the rate at which the global
>> ecosystem is being ravaged.
>>
>>
>> Material wealth is created from natural resources by labor.
>>
>> That's it.
>>
>> You can't have your planet and eat it too. Although the so-called
>> 'environmentalists' would like you to think so.
>>
>> But they don't tell you that recycling paper does as much harm to
>> the environment as making new paper does, do they?
>>
>> Or that every year since the first Earth Day, more of the planet has
>> been trashed than the year before.
>>
>> (30+ years of satellite images do not lie. See the WWFs "Living
>> Planet" series of studies, for one.)
>
>
> I love your take on Environmentalism. Looks like we have some general
> agreement there too.
Frightening thought :-)
nemo
>But we have little wealth in the material sense...
And you are even poorer intellectually.
Regards,
GODSTAR
> GODSTAR <god...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> TKD. SCARS.
> >Funny your theory supports TKD... Its almost all sparring.. in fact
> >most classes teach exactly what works in their randori and you train
> >only for their sparring and sport...
> In a school that specialises in that, yes; and a lot of
> it will be pretty heavy contact sparring, too. (Of course,
Tae kwan do is an olympic sport... pretty bad ass if you ask me
</sarcasm off>
Robert Low
>mtx...@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) wrote in message
>> it will be pretty heavy contact sparring, too. (Of course,
>
>Tae kwan do is an olympic sport... pretty bad ass if you ask me
></sarcasm off>
No need for the sarcasm; if anything, you can probably use
Olympic tkd as a counter to the argument that the only thing
that matters in training for combat effectiveness is
heavy contact sparring. It's pretty clear that a restrictive
enough rule set will lead to problems there. So, that takes
care of the sufficiency of sparring for effectiveness;
if I could just deal with necessity, I'd have an argument
that the (so-called) TMAs are right up there with MMA
fight club turbo-nutter-bastard training :-)
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>>
>> > Your
>> >argument that we should not create wealth because we are stealing from
>> >future generations lead to a new question: "Well what would happen if
>> >some generation would stop stealing from future generations?"
>>
>> That was not what you said. The example you used was that if previous
>> generations did not take resources we would not have a civilization
>>
>
>It is the exact same question. You argued that growing corn is
>stealing from future generations. Yet if you don't grow corn how will
>there be future generations? Hal you painted yourself into a corner
>and left no escape. It is not a fallacy to point out that all your
>claims lead to a contradiction.
Yes it is, because I never said the we shouldn't grow corn, THAT would
be your STRAW MAN argument, like I said all along. No one is
suggesting we stop all agricultural production. The answer obviously
is is sustained yield agriculture.
>
>
>> "But is the impact greater than the value of the civilization that
>> created it? Assume the civilization that grew the corn is the one
>> that must bear the cost down the road. Are we less wealthy today
>> because humans survived the last 5000 years than we would be if humans
>> became extinct?"
>>
>>
>> > It is
>> >not a fallacy to follow theories to their consequenses. That is not
>> >what "straw man" means.
>>
>> It is if you carry it to an extreme consequence, which is what you
>> did.
>
>Not if those are the consequences of the actual argument you made.
Wrong. I never made that argument. Only made the argument that there
is a source of wealth and a price paid somewhere by someone for an
individual accumulation of weatlh. If said source of wealth is a non
sustained yield agriculture, then croplands are being depleted (as
they are worldwide at an exponential rate), and that is the price
being paid.
> I
>can't help it if you take a stance that has an extreme consequence.
No, I am making a reasonable argument, you are twisting into an
unreasonable because you can't deal with what I am actually saying.
>Perhaps you should think about your ideas before you write them.
I would be better off thinking about what an idiot you are before I
waste any more time with you.
> You
>really did claim that growing corn is stealing from future
>generations. Same deal with raising a herd of cattle.
Yep. Essentially we are.
> You should
>stop taking positions that are extreem. What would happen if people
>stoped growing food?
Straw man. AGAIN.
At least you're consistent.
> The population of humans expands as our food
>supply does. If we were to suddenly cut that food supply by not
>farming then what do you think would happen? Would future generations
>be glad we stoped stealing from them?
Ge, there's another answer. Wanna take a stab at what it might be?
This is yet another logical fallacy on your part, known as a false
dilemma. You are offering only two options, when in reality there are
more.
>> >I didn't make that up. You really did say that Earth is a closed
>> >system. I didn't make that up either.
>>
>> Yep. Said that too. Earth IS a closed system. I posted the links to
>> highly respected research instituttions which agreed and explained
>> why. As I said, _energy doesn't count_.
>
>
>Well if now you willing to exclude energy then I will let it slide. I
>am sick of that topic and will give you a pat on the back for the
>progress you have made. I am glad you have changed your position.
>
I am glad you are finally getting a clue, because I always made the
argument that energy only converts matter, and is irrelevent to the
issue of the Earth's closed ecosystem. I post links to simple basic
science carbon/nitrogen cycles to explain it.
>> >Why should we belive that wealth cannot be created? What is the
>> >reason?
>>
>> Because any model you've used disregards inputs into your system.
>
>So? I cannot provide an example that includes everybody on the
>planet. I guess for you that wouldn't be enough because you want to
>include future generations so How could I create an example that
>includes everyone who ever was or ever will be human? It is rediculus
>for you to expect that.
You cannot? That does not surprise me. Ecologists, statiticians and
modelers do it all the time. You don't count each person individually
you know. You count the entire human population as a single variable
sized entity. An exponentially growing entity BTW. You can model
growth, production, and consumption over time. People do it all the
time. You need to read more.
>
>Every example showed wealth was created. You offered no reason to
>think it is not. Dissmising my examples does not automaticaly mean
>your idea is true.
You presented absurdly flawed and limited examples in an attempt to
prove my contention was not true. I pointed out the error in your
reasoning. I told you to trace the source of inputs in your
artificially constrained model. You only presented similarly flawed
and constrained examples.
>
>
>> I've explained that and you ignored it. There is always a source of
>> material goods outside of your model. Always.
>
>
>So? Why should we believe wealth cannot be created? You never
>offered a reason. Shooting down my examples is not a reason to
>believe your idea.
Like I said, from a completely egocentric selfish view of wealth, it
could be, however, if you want to extend your model and your morals to
what is really happening, you are not creating anything, only
accumulating it for you. When you do, someone else loses. This is
not a new idea.
>> example. On the other hand, there was stuff like Kirk claiming
>> meteorites proved the Earth wasn't a closed system. Almost too funny
>> to even believe someone said, yet you let that one pass by. Perhaps
>> you are that dumb too.
>>
>I won't disagree with Kirk when I think he is right. Current theory
>is that Earth is a collection of meteorites. The planet is a gravety
>well and apart from our intevention the mater that reaches Earth never
>leaves.
Cites? What is the material significance of meteorites hitting the
Earth? What kind of compounds do they add to the cycle? I say there
is nothing besides trace amounts of iron.
>> >> You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
>> >> where horribly flawed and illogical.
>> >
>> >Can you be honest?
>>
>> Better than you.
>
>Bwhahahaha. Hal you have a reputation here on RMA and you have earned
>it.
Argumentum ad populum. I take a stance typically different than the
average sociopath warrior wannabe. Doesn't make me wrong.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >. . . I tried to explain that to you
>> >> and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
>> >> me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
>> >
>> >
>> >I am starting to think your are reality challenged.
>>
>> I am finally realizing you are either a moron or a troll. Either way
>> I am done with you.
>>
>> Hal
>
>Poor Hal. His ideas don't add up and he blames others for not taking
>him seriously.
My ideas add up much more than your ability to grasp them.
Hal
Eric Neale
Now that is odd. It would seem that Alan Connor has independently
come to the very same conclusion as you regarding the magnatude of the
evil that is the United States. I was under the impresion that you
considered that to indicate high intelligence, Nemo. You know - the
race goes to the swifter and all that.
Kirk Lawson
Flat broke, actually.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge
of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists
gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
Alan Connor
I pointed out that he was as much a part of the war machine as any of
the people he condemns, that the only difference between him and them
is words.
The U.S. is not evil. Ignorance is not evil.
Mike Ozanne
>. Ignorance is not evil.
But a wilful refusal to become informed is.
Mike Ozanne
Eric Neale
In that case I was wrong. I have no idea what you stand for so I will
keep my mouth shut. ;-)
Alan Connor
:-) I HOPE you don't do that.
Killing people and trashing the planet is wrong. But it isn't evil. There
isn't any such thing. All apparent evil is the result of ignorance, not
some creative force that's divorced from God. There *isn't* anything
but God.
Ignorance of the Law IS an excuse.
Everyone does the best they can with what they think they know, and
gets as many chances as they need.
That being said, it is perfectly correct to withhold support from those
who do serious wrongs (moral violations) and to run interference on
those activities as long as that interference is not a moral violation
itself. And to get in their faces and tell them to clean up their act,
that what they are doing is counter-productive, wrong, and unnecessary.
AC
Roy Thomson
"Alan Connor" <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
....snip....
> Take a look at what has to be done to the planet to make solar power
> a reality for eveyone on it.
>
> Solar cells are semi-conductor devices, which use some of the nastiest
> high-order petroleum-based chemicals in existence, just for starters.
>
> Then there's those wonderful batteries.....
>
> Passive solar, locally created, has its uses, absolutely.
>
What's your view on exploitation of geothermal energy?
I'm kind of, uneasy, about it.
Roy
h...@nospam.com
No, that would be stupidity.
The willful attempt to keep other ignorant people from becoming
informed for your own selfish interests. . . now thats evil.
Hal
>
>Mike Ozanne
Pierre Honeyman
> Take a look at what has to be done to the planet to make solar power
> a reality for eveyone on it.
Moon, satellites, microwaves. 'nuff said.
Pierre
Eric Neale
> On 15 Nov 2003 11:27:37 -0800, calvin...@ocsnet.net (Eric Neale)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> > Your
> >> >argument that we should not create wealth because we are stealing from
> >> >future generations lead to a new question: "Well what would happen if
> >> >some generation would stop stealing from future generations?"
> >>
> >> That was not what you said. The example you used was that if previous
> >> generations did not take resources we would not have a civilization
> >>
> >
> >It is the exact same question. You argued that growing corn is
> >stealing from future generations. Yet if you don't grow corn how will
> >there be future generations? Hal you painted yourself into a corner
> >and left no escape. It is not a fallacy to point out that all your
> >claims lead to a contradiction.
>
>
> Yes it is, because I never said the we shouldn't grow corn,
I never said you did. Why would you bring that up? You don't have to
claim that people shouldn't grow corn in order for others to consider
what would happen if people were to stop stealing from future
generations by not growing plants. Gee Hal you sure graps as straws.
. . . THAT would
> be your STRAW MAN argument, like I said all along. No one is
> suggesting we stop all agricultural production. The answer obviously
> is is sustained yield agriculture.
No. You said growing any plant isn't creating wealth because f.g.
must pay for it. Sustained yield agriculture is growing plants so it
is coverd in your argument otherwise people can create wealth.
> >> "But is the impact greater than the value of the civilization that
> >> created it? Assume the civilization that grew the corn is the one
> >> that must bear the cost down the road. Are we less wealthy today
> >> because humans survived the last 5000 years than we would be if humans
> >> became extinct?"
> >>
> >>
> >> > It is
> >> >not a fallacy to follow theories to their consequenses. That is not
> >> >what "straw man" means.
> >>
> >> It is if you carry it to an extreme consequence, which is what you
> >> did.
> >
> >Not if those are the consequences of the actual argument you made.
>
> Wrong. I never made that argument.
You never claimed that growing plants isn't creating wealth because
future generations must pay? I think I have already quoted you saying
just that. If you did then it isn't a fallacy for me to question what
would happen if the opposate happened.
. . . Only made the argument that there
> is a source of wealth and a price paid somewhere by someone for an
> individual accumulation of weatlh. If said source of wealth is a non
> sustained yield agriculture, then croplands are being depleted (as
> they are worldwide at an exponential rate), and that is the price
> being paid.
So you are saying that if someone does sustained yield agruiculture
then are they creating wealth?
>
> > I
> >can't help it if you take a stance that has an extreme consequence.
>
> No, I am making a reasonable argument, you are twisting into an
> unreasonable because you can't deal with what I am actually saying.
LOL. I think there is a clear record of me dealing with what you
write and you not dealing with what I write. This has been going on
for months.
>
> >Perhaps you should think about your ideas before you write them.
>
> I would be better off thinking about what an idiot you are before I
> waste any more time with you.
>
I am not the only one who had disagreed with you. Is the whole
western world stupid? Pay attention before you falsly accuse me of a
fallacy again. I am not saying you are wrong because much of the
world disagrees with you but rather that since so many disagree with
you how can the reason for the disagreement be that they are all
stupid? Is every capatalist an idiot? If not then how would you
respond to those who are not?
> > You
> >really did claim that growing corn is stealing from future
> >generations. Same deal with raising a herd of cattle.
>
> Yep. Essentially we are.
But I thought you didn't make this argument. That was why you cried
"straw man" when I pointed out it's flaw.
>
> > You should
> >stop taking positions that are extreem. What would happen if people
> >stoped growing food?
>
> Straw man. AGAIN.
Did I say you claimed that? No I am making an argument of my own.
Can you tell the difference? The negation of your argument is not
your argument. (Isn't this self evident?) You did not say what you
did not say. This isn't rocket science.
>
> At least you're consistent.
>
> > The population of humans expands as our food
> >supply does. If we were to suddenly cut that food supply by not
> >farming then what do you think would happen? Would future generations
> >be glad we stoped stealing from them?
>
> Ge, there's another answer. Wanna take a stab at what it might be?
> This is yet another logical fallacy on your part, known as a false
> dilemma. You are offering only two options, when in reality there are
> more.
I am *not* saying that we must either we grow all the food that we can
or we grow none at all. You said growing any food is stealing so the
negation of that is to grow none. Either food is grown or it is not.
So I simply looked at the opposate of your claim to see if any
contradictions pop up. If you were not using the quantifier "all"
then your claim does not prove that wealth cannot be created. Because
wealth could be created during the exceptions.
>
>
> >> >I didn't make that up. You really did say that Earth is a closed
> >> >system. I didn't make that up either.
> >>
> >> Yep. Said that too. Earth IS a closed system. I posted the links to
> >> highly respected research instituttions which agreed and explained
> >> why. As I said, _energy doesn't count_.
> >
> >
> >Well if now you willing to exclude energy then I will let it slide. I
> >am sick of that topic and will give you a pat on the back for the
> >progress you have made. I am glad you have changed your position.
> >
>
> I am glad you are finally getting a clue, because I always made the
> argument that energy only converts matter, and is irrelevent to the
> issue of the Earth's closed ecosystem. I post links to simple basic
> science carbon/nitrogen cycles to explain it.
The more you change your position the less wrong it becomes. Keep
wiggling and you will get there. Just don't pretend that we opposed
your new position instead of the old one.
>
>
> >> >Why should we belive that wealth cannot be created? What is the
> >> >reason?
> >>
> >> Because any model you've used disregards inputs into your system.
> >
> >So? I cannot provide an example that includes everybody on the
> >planet. I guess for you that wouldn't be enough because you want to
> >include future generations so How could I create an example that
> >includes everyone who ever was or ever will be human? It is rediculus
> >for you to expect that.
>
> You cannot? That does not surprise me. Ecologists, statiticians and
> modelers do it all the time. You don't count each person individually
> you know.
Hello? I just said you cannot provide an example that includes ecah
person individually. Either others do or they do not but you are
contradictiong yourself to claim they do and do not. Are you using a
staw man by caliming my comments about examples apply to differential
equations? They are as different as apples and oranges.
. . .You count the entire human population as a single variable
> sized entity. An exponentially growing entity BTW. You can model
> growth, production, and consumption over time. People do it all the
> time.
Of course we can intergrate an equation from 1 to 5 billion or more.
I never said we couldn't. As a mater of fact that is the key to my
argument and your flaw. The more food people have the more their
population tends to grow. That is why future generations depend upon
the food grown in their past. Of course if we don't know exactly how
many people existed in the past nor how many will exist in the future
then our results will be quite uncertin. What do you prove by
guessing? Do you even have an equation for your model? Without an
equation I think we should stick to examples. You can tell the
difference between an example and an equation - can't you?
>. . . You need to read more.
>
Love to. That is a good idea.
> >
> >Every example showed wealth was created. You offered no reason to
> >think it is not. Dissmising my examples does not automaticaly mean
> >your idea is true.
>
> You presented absurdly flawed and limited examples in an attempt to
> prove my contention was not true. I pointed out the error in your
> reasoning. I told you to trace the source of inputs in your
> artificially constrained model. You only presented similarly flawed
> and constrained examples.
LOL. Lets assume for a minute that you are right. Why should we
believe your idea that wealth cannot be created. Can you offer any
reason for us to belive your idea?
>
> >
> >
> >> I've explained that and you ignored it. There is always a source of
> >> material goods outside of your model. Always.
> >
> >
> >So? Why should we believe wealth cannot be created? You never
> >offered a reason. Shooting down my examples is not a reason to
> >believe your idea.
>
> Like I said, from a completely egocentric selfish view of wealth, it
> could be, however, if you want to extend your model and your morals to
> what is really happening, you are not creating anything, only
> accumulating it for you. When you do, someone else loses. This is
> not a new idea.
Can you read? I asked why should we believe you are right. What is
the reason that we should belive this idea of yours. Proving I am
wrong, even if you could, is not a reason to belive you are right.
>
>
> >> example. On the other hand, there was stuff like Kirk claiming
> >> meteorites proved the Earth wasn't a closed system. Almost too funny
> >> to even believe someone said, yet you let that one pass by. Perhaps
> >> you are that dumb too.
> >>
> >I won't disagree with Kirk when I think he is right. Current theory
> >is that Earth is a collection of meteorites. The planet is a gravety
> >well and apart from our intevention the mater that reaches Earth never
> >leaves.
>
> Cites?
You want me to cite that what comes down does not go up? Is this so
hard for you to belive that you need me to cite some authority? Do
you think gravety doesn't work all the time? I am not going to
bother. Conduct an expiriment: drop an apple and record how many
times it goes down vs. how many time it flies up into the sky and
escapes from the planet's orbit.
. . . What is the material significance of meteorites hitting the
> Earth?
It does not mater. If some is added from outside the system then it
isn't a closed system. Adding one pound of material is still adding
material.
. . . What kind of compounds do they add to the cycle? I say there
> is nothing besides trace amounts of iron.
>
I agree however do you know what closed system means? How can
something be added and nothing be added at the same time?
>
>
> >> >> You've never once explained anything logically. Your explanations
> >> >> where horribly flawed and illogical.
> >> >
> >> >Can you be honest?
> >>
> >> Better than you.
> >
> >Bwhahahaha. Hal you have a reputation here on RMA and you have earned
> >it.
>
> Argumentum ad populum. I take a stance typically different than the
> average sociopath warrior wannabe. Doesn't make me wrong.
LOL! I am not claiming that you are wrong because people do not
believe you. I am saying that this behavior of your effects the way
people think about you. You have a history of being acedemicaly
dishonest and playing little word games. You really can't tell the
difference between a fallacy and sound logic can you? It's pathetic.
Anyone who wants a cite on this can just look at the posts writen by
Hal. It doesn't take long to see the patern.
> >> >. . . I tried to explain that to you
> >> >> and you say things like "you have fallacies and logic confused" making
> >> >> me realize you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I am starting to think your are reality challenged.
> >>
> >> I am finally realizing you are either a moron or a troll. Either way
> >> I am done with you.
> >>
> >> Hal
> >
> >Poor Hal. His ideas don't add up and he blames others for not taking
> >him seriously.
>
> My ideas add up much more than your ability to grasp them.
Hal I would be very worried if you thought I was smart.