Text 7000, 110 rader
Skriven 2005-01-05 22:45:26 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 6974 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Rules of Debate
=======================
Darryl Perry -> John Hull wrote:
 DP> On 01-05-05, John Hull said...

 JH>> Darryl Perry -> John Hull wrote:
 DP>>> On 01-05-05, John Hull said...

 JH>>>> Stan Hardegree -> Darryl Perry wrote:
 DP>>>>>> You are a pathetic old geezer who is just trying to get a
 DP>>>>>> rise out of me. It ain't going to work.  My statement stands.
 DP>>>>>> Go back to sucking up on GWB's backside.

 SH>>>>> Be still my heart!  Could THIS be the intelligent liberal we
 DP>>> have so
 SH>>>>> long wished for.


 JH>>>> I don't think there is any such animal as an intelligent liberal.
 DP>>> Invariab

 DP>>> Is there any doubt now that there is no way to have a civil
 DP> debate wi
 JH>> you
 DP>>> and your gang here?  All it ever is with you, stan, the EDs and
 DP> frank
 DP>>> attack, deride, libel, condem, dump on, ridicule and taunt.
 DP> You all
 DP>>> for citing sources, yet you glibly make statments to the
 DP> contrary wit
 DP>>> ever backing them up yourself, and try to pass that all off as
 DP> THE TR

 JH>> You're a real piece of work, aren't you?  All of us you named have
 DP> been he
 JH>> for fifteen years and have routinely posted sources when called for
 DP> - and

 DP> I've been a fidonet sysop for 14 years.  It's true that I have not carried
 DP> this echo on my BBS the whole time, nor have I read it continuously for
 DP> that
 DP> amount of time, but what I *have* noticed is that the only people citing
 DP> sources or posting cut/paste articles are the same people that you are
 DP> attacking.... without cites of your own.

 JH>> quite often before anyone even asks for them.  You know what the
 DP> routine
 JH>> response is from the lefties like you?  Oh, that's not a legit
 DP> source, or
 JH>> never saw any such post, blah, blah, blah.  If the cite isn't to
 DP> your liki
 JH>> you just pretend we never posted it, or you didn't see it, or the
 DP> URL we g
 JH>> is no good, etc.  I can't remember the last time one of you had the
 DP> balls
 JH>> say "OK, thanks.  I was wrong."

 DP> Strong words John, but I've also never seen you or your gang behave
 DP> otherwise.

 DP>>> If you want someone to cite sources, you had better get in to
 DP> the hab
 JH>> of
 DP>>> doing so yourself.  I don't feel any special need to do it
 DP> myself if
 JH>> know
 DP>>> that you won't ever do so yourself.

 JH>> Don't EVER try to accuse any of us of not posting cites and sources
 DP> becaus
 JH>> can prove otherwise.  But then, you don't seem to know what proof is
 DP> anywa
 JH>> so we haven't got much to worry about.

 DP> I made my statement based on observation, John.  What I have NOT observed
 DP> you do in the past threads is post any links to offer as proof for your
 DP> statements.

 JH>> By the way, a cite is something from a legitimate publication like a
 JH>> newspaper, magazine, book, or other media source that EVERYBODY has
 DP> access
 JH>> and can check out for themselves.  Statements based on common knowledge
 JH>> obtained from current news (current news events, etc.) and that are
 DP> repeat
 JH>> across many different media and networks, do NOT require a cite as
 DP> long as
 JH>> identify the outlet (NBC News, etc.).

 DP> Just citing Fox News, or NBC or NYT doesn't really cut it.  Unless you
 DP> can offer a issue/page number, or a link, then that's no better than name
 DP> dropping.  If you have a link to a site where others can check it out,
that
 DP> would be best.  I have not seen any of you show any such 'cites' in the
 DP> past
 DP> several weeks, and certainly not over any of the current threads.

The news has been mostly breaking news ever since the beginning of the 2004
campaign season.  There is little or no point in posting cites for stuff that
is plastered all over the news on an hourly basis, but we did anyway.  As for
the rest, its been several years since there was anyone in here who was worth
debating in any serious way.  By the way, I've got a directory with a couple of
hundred text files in it that got posted in this echo.  I don't much care if
you didn't see them or not.

Just for your edification, it isn't necessary to lead you by the nose to a
source and give you the page and paragraph.  You're supposed to be a bloody
intelligent adult.  The date and source of publication should be sufficient. 
You're expected to do your own homework, or didn't they teach you that in
school?

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)