Text 1076, 97 rader
Skriven 2004-08-09 01:32:23 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
   Kommentar till text 1020 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: AOL Censorship - have
=================================
Hey, FRANK.

 EC>>>>> He just related his experiences.

 GM>>>>  No, he didn't, Ed.  He merely claimed he had similar experiences.
 GM>>>>  He didn't relate those experiences, didn't say what they were.

 EC>>>> Okay.  He related that he had had similar experiences.

 DR>>> Sophistry?  Bending?  You admit John didn't relate his experience
 DR>>> then again in the same post, you repeat the claim:

 EC>>> Look, relating an experience can be done at many different levels
 EC>>> of abstraction.

 DR>>  Yet, more of your sophistry.

 EC>> If you don't understand, just say so.

 EC>>> In this particular case, John discribed his experience as similar.
 EC>>> If he had said that it was dissimilar, that would have told me
 EC>>> something different.

 DR>>  What was similar about John's experience?  What was different?

 EC>> Why don't you ask John?

 EC>>> Now you might claim that you can grasp nothing from what John said,
 EC>>> but that is your fault.

 DR>>  I see much in John's posts.  I've elaborated on that in another post.

 EC>> Okay.

 DR>>> John told us only that he had "similar experiences."  He said nothing
 DR>>> about them.  Again you can't keep your story straight.  That's the
 DR>>> trouble when you lie, Ed.  And it's obvious that you're caught up in
 DR>>> your own lies. You have no credibility here, Ed.

 EC>>> The fact that his experience was similar means nothing to you?  Hmmm.

 DR>>  That's correct.  It means nothing to me.

 EC>> You seem to get on a high horse about something that means "nothing".

 EC>>> Keep digging yourself a hole.

 DR>>  I'd have to dig for a long time to find you buried under that
 DR>> mountain of lies and sophistry.

 EC>> heh heh heh

 EC>> It's funny.  I use the word sophistry, and you then use it every other
 EC>> paragraph.   You are amusing, Dawn.

 FS> I've just realized something!  Your mentioning "Dawn's" repeated
 FS> use of the word, "sophistry".   I'll bet "she" isn't even a "she",
 FS> or even a "he" but a computerized FidoNet-automated-message-
 FS> generator similar in function to those old "psychologist"
 FS> programs of twenty years ago or so.  One would "correspond" with
 FS> the "psychologist" which would help "solve" your problem.  You
 FS> may not recall the programs.  They went along something like
 FS> this:

 FS> User:  "I have a headache and don't know what to do about it."

 FS> "Psychologist Software":  "And you find that troubling?"

 FS> U:  "My wife has left me for another man."

 FS> PS: "'another man'?"

 FS> U:  "Yes"

 FS> PS:  "Why do you say 'yes'?"

 FS> U:  "Huh?"

 FS> PS:  "'Huh' bothers you?"

 FS> ... then the program continues plucking out your words and using
 FS> them -- often wrongly -- in a "response".

 FS> U:  "Do you really know what you're talking about?"

 FS> PS: "'about' bothers you?"

 FS> etc., etc.

 FS> "Dawn" might be that type program.  You can test this out by
 FS> typing some nonsense "word" such as, "oujlasjfd" to see if
 FS> "Dawn" re-uses it ...

By George, I think you've got it. <g>

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Bush, "Let's roll."  Kerry, "Let's rollover." (1:379/1.6)