Rolling change
Dale Anderson
responses. Somewhere along the way, I'm going to end up putting
someone in the wrong category.... ;-)
How many people, both ARA and anti, that post on this list have read
the writings of Singer or Robbins?
ANTI:
Dale Anderson Yes
Rich Young Yes
Martin Martens Yes
Sue Bishop Yes
Doug Jones Yes
Bacon No
Cat in Alaska No
Swamp Thing No
Beauwolfe Yes
Jim Prowlesand Yes
Scott No
James Hepler No
diderot No
ARA:
Amos Keppler No
Michael Cerkowski Yes
Gordon Yes
Rat Yes
NEITHER:
Puukani Yes
=============
"My point being that when you argue with animal rights activist about "poor
starving children" you might just as well bring up aliens from Mars. As they
probably know more about that than being poor, starving or children."
Verne
========
Dale Anderson
dand...@mail.tds.net
Barton Marney
Dale Anderson <dand...@mail.tds.net> wrote in message
news:37f93003....@news.tdsnet.com...
J. B. Smith
Jazmyn Concolor
ones. If he were not from a well-off family, he would be in a straight
jacket... (the difference between crazy and eccentric is in your bank account)
Dale Anderson wrote:
Michael Cerkowski
>
> And this proves ... ? Forgive me if I missed the beginning of this thread.
I can only speculate that Dale set out to prove that the
Antis were actually better-read in the field of AR philosophy
than the ARAs. As it became clear that this was most certainly
not the case - several antis have even bragged about not reading
the books - his enthusiasm for the project waned. I do give
him credit for not dropping it at the first sign of trouble,
though.
(...)
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Dale Anderson
>Again, no. Never.
I apologize for missing you the first time. I also have to apologize
in I don't know which category to put you in. I'm assuming "anti,"
given the tone of your message. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Dale Anderson
>And this proves ... ? Forgive me if I missed the beginning of this thread.
Gordon said a couple weeks ago that most antis have not read either
Singer or Robbins. I found the point intriguing, and decided to put
the effort in an informal poll of the participants here. Though it
would be interesting to see how the ARA side did, too. They are two
names that come up a lot.
FWIW, Gordon's coming close to being technically right.... ;-)
I missed your response... Yes or no, and your "leanings" if you
please?
Dale Anderson
>J. B. Smith wrote:
>>
>> And this proves ... ? Forgive me if I missed the beginning of this thread.
>
> I can only speculate that Dale set out to prove that the
>Antis were actually better-read in the field of AR philosophy
>than the ARAs.
And once again Michael would be embarassingly wrong. That would
assume that Michael would be embarassed in being wrong. He kinda looks
like a masochist from this end.... :^>
>As it became clear that this was most certainly
>not the case - several antis have even bragged about not reading
>the books - his enthusiasm for the project waned.
"Enthusiasm waned" because I was getting no more responses. Why waste
the bandwidth?
>I do give
>him credit for not dropping it at the first sign of trouble,
>though.
There was no "trouble" to force such an action. I've said several
times why I am doing this. Only a paranoid person would look for
alterior motives when it's obvious there are none. (Check under your
bed lately? ROFL!) :->
Dale Anderson
>You forgot me, ya silly.
Missed that one, too. Either server problems, or alzheimers. ;-)
G*rd*n
| >
| > And this proves ... ? Forgive me if I missed the beginning of this thread.
| I can only speculate that Dale set out to prove that the
| Antis were actually better-read in the field of AR philosophy
| than the ARAs. As it became clear that this was most certainly
| not the case - several antis have even bragged about not reading
| the books - his enthusiasm for the project waned. I do give
| him credit for not dropping it at the first sign of trouble,
| though.
I asserted that I thought "antis" had not read the
material. I suppose Dale wanted to disprove my
proposition. However, it turns out that a fairly
_light_ reading merits a "yes", which would also
accord with the phenomena I have observed and
described.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/2/99 }
G*rd*n
| You forgot me, ya silly. Yes, I have read Singer... He is one of the scary
| ones. If he were not from a well-off family, he would be in a straight
| jacket... (the difference between crazy and eccentric is in your bank account)
What exactly did you find strait-jacket-class "crazy" in
Singer? His work seems rather plodding to me.
Dale Anderson
>I asserted that I thought "antis" had not read the
>material. I suppose Dale wanted to disprove my
>proposition.
You used the word "most," actually.
And we have yet another proclaimation that someone cannot prove, when
it comes down to it.
If I wanted to "disprove" I would have only polled for "antis." My
only interest here is a genuine curiosity as to how many folks have
actually read either.
Watching both you and Michael twitch your knees in paranoid reaction
is kinda amusing, though..... :^>
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> J. B. Smith wrote:
> >
> > And this proves ... ? Forgive me if I missed the beginning of this thread.
>
> I can only speculate that Dale set out to prove that the
> Antis were actually better-read in the field of AR philosophy
> than the ARAs.
Or maybe there's nothing to read into it, jokers. Maybe he was just
trying to compile numbers. Nah, impossible, right? He has to have some
motive, right? Silly gits.
> As it became clear that this was most certainly
> not the case - several antis have even bragged about not reading
> the books - his enthusiasm for the project waned.
He is posting the information as it comes. How the hell do you know
anything about his enthusiasm? My god, you are a bitter little monkey
aren't you, Mikey?
> I do give
> him credit for not dropping it at the first sign of trouble,
> though.
What trouble? He was getting information, so where did the trouble
start? The only thing that this has proved is that you, Mikey, and
possibly Gordon are paranoid as all get out about the motives of others,
to the point where you can hardly answer effectively. Laughable. Leave
it to you to on one hand accept information as it is spoon fed you by
your AR pallies while on the other hand being so damn suspicious of
someone else's questions as to rant on as if he was somehow trying
undermine your entire philosophy with a damn survey.
Grow up already, Mikey.
James Hepler
--
"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
would want you to believe".
-Bright Eyes
G*rd*n
| >I asserted that I thought "antis" had not read the
| >material. I suppose Dale wanted to disprove my
| >proposition.
dand...@mail.tds.net (Dale Anderson):
| You used the word "most," actually.
|
| And we have yet another proclaimation that someone cannot prove, when
| it comes down to it.
|
| If I wanted to "disprove" I would have only polled for "antis." My
| only interest here is a genuine curiosity as to how many folks have
| actually read either.
|
| Watching both you and Michael twitch your knees in paranoid reaction
| is kinda amusing, though..... :^>
I don't see anything paranoid about my thinking you wanted
to disprove one of my propositions. It seems like s.o.p.
for this newsgroup. That what horseraces are all about,
etc.
Barton Marney
Dale Anderson <dand...@mail.tds.net> wrote in message
news:37f9d89a...@news.tdsnet.com...
> "Barton Marney" <la...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Again, no. Never.
>
> I apologize for missing you the first time. I also have to apologize
> in I don't know which category to put you in. I'm assuming "anti,"
> given the tone of your message. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
Dale Anderson
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >I asserted that I thought "antis" had not read the
>| >material. I suppose Dale wanted to disprove my
>| >proposition.
>
>dand...@mail.tds.net (Dale Anderson):
>| You used the word "most," actually.
>|
>| And we have yet another proclaimation that someone cannot prove, when
>| it comes down to it.
>|
>| If I wanted to "disprove" I would have only polled for "antis." My
>| only interest here is a genuine curiosity as to how many folks have
>| actually read either.
>|
>| Watching both you and Michael twitch your knees in paranoid reaction
>| is kinda amusing, though..... :^>
>
>I don't see anything paranoid about my thinking you wanted
>to disprove one of my propositions.
Whadda surprise... :^>
>It seems like s.o.p.
>for this newsgroup. That what horseraces are all about,
>etc.
One has to have ignored waht I have said consistantly through the
whole poll process, too....