🚀 go-pugleaf

hbiesel@uvsc.edu (Visitor) writes:

>In article <cjmount.783655376@extro>, cjmount@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Christopher Mountford) says:
>>
>>trx140@xmission.com (theurgy) writes:
>>
>>>cjmount@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Christopher Mountford) writes:
>>
>>>...elided...
>>
>>>>Many people don't realise the authority structures which exist on
>>>>the net. Mostly they are a lynch mob of supporters of the 
>>>>present crappy system. They wish to confine debate to opinions
>>>>within a given range. This is the way western free-society keeps
>>>>freedom under control and keeps indoctrination and opression in
>>>>place. 
>>
>>>Regurgitated ideological rhetoric. Where do they teach them this crap?
>>
>>What a thoughtful response. It wouldn't take much for the average
>>person to see how you failed to address what is part of many people's
>>oppression. Fine. Call me names, it saves actually thinking.

>theurgy didn't call you names, but characterized the language of your post, 
>IMO correctly. "lynch mob of supporters", "western free society keeps freedom 
>under control", etc. are ideological assertions with precious little support. The
>fact that they may be accepted as gospel by True Believers does not lend 
>them credibility here.

No, and same to you about "gospel by True Believers".

I am not trying to convince, I am trying to challenge people to think
and then, with an open mind, perhaps they wont gag about words which
may sound strange.

>This kind of rhetoric saves thinking, by providing ready-made responses to 
>questions. 

No it just saves writing endless explanations. I admit the phrases I used
were rhetoric, but so what? They were true as I saw it and perhaps the
appropriateness is limited by people who can't keep an open mind. Don't 
you see how language is manipulated by *everyone* or do you think there
is a core 'reasonable' language like on tv and stuff? That's engineered
too. I have always encouraged looking beyond the surface of my words.


>Your post, for example, uses language that condemns western values, and 
>does so in a way that makes it clear that your understanding of these values
>is academic rather from experience.

No actually, wrong guess.

>>>Not only is the net the closest thing to free speech we've ever had, but
>>>Rosie's desire, as expressed in her earlier post, is to confine the debate
>>>in just the way you're claiming. Frankly, Rosie's a whiner, and the fact 
>>>that she's female has little to do with how she's treated.
>>
>>>Felicitations,
>>>              M.
>>
>>Yes the net is the closest thing to free speech we've had. Why is a 
>>large jump to partial solution enough for you?
>>
>>Rosie desired anyone who agreed with her to support her in registering
>>unsatisfaction with Dwayne to him. 

>Rosie wants to restrict the net to posts and email that she does not find 
>offensive. Offhand I can think of little that would be more restrictive and
>stultifying to net.discourse than to adopt the standards of this whiny person.

Perhaps she did. If ths is so I agree. I was merely trying to open minds.

>Has it occurred to you that perhaps theurgy has the basis in experience and 
>education to recognize drivel as such, and to dismiss it on that basis? You 
>seem to  believe that any post whatsoever deserves a respectful reading.

>Yours,
>         M.


Yes I believe that.


Engine.