🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0T4ct4elIqoeN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
 Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > In article <0T4cr1rtI8vtN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> > Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I couldn't help but notice that, once again, you failed to engage even a 
> >> > single issue raised by the writer.
> >> 
> >> Yeah, there's a reason for that. See if you can figure it out.
> > 
> > You're incapable of addressing ideas on their merit, and would rather 
> > retort by rant and angst and call people who upset you poopy-heads?
> 
> Nope. I didn't think you'd get it.
> 
> It's like this: if you start a discussion based on a racist
> assumption, and then draw people into that discussion to go
> back and forth of the merits of said racist assumption, then
> you've won already -- the racism is legitimized.

There's your problem, there was a greater point made, but it got lost in 
your assumption of racism.

If I were to raise an issue with the governance of N. Korea, would you 
see it as a racist attack on the yellow man?
 
> There are important problems facing us as a country.

And perhaps the people must be kept from frivolous musings!

> Your
> red herring isn't one of them. Get along now.

Do you know what that term means?

Let me teach you. Had I inserted this post into a thread on, say, 
endangered dolphins, in order to divert discussion away from the issue 
(me being an ardent hunter of dolphins) - that would be a red herring.

In that proper context, just what exactly is your off-topic rant about 
the end off the world and poopy-headed racists and all that stuff? After 
all, you failed to even illustrate racist intent with any relevant 
example, a rather crude way to deconstruct an argument wouldn't it seem?