🚀 go-pugleaf

Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> 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.

No, Steve. That wasn't an assumption. You posted all the necessary
evidence on your own, free from any goading or influence by anyone.

There was no greater point. The racism *was* the point.