🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May2.170621.4755@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>While we're bandying about various rumors, speculations, and various
>other unsubstantiated claims, let me fan the flames with a few more:
...
>Unsubstantiated rumor #1:
....
>Unsubstantiated rumor #2:
...
>
>Again, I won't attempt to draw conclusions for anyone else.  But I'll ask
>these questions.
...

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa Kaleb!

	How are we supposed to answer these questions you ask without
assuming that your "unsubstantiated rumours" are in fact accurate? Unless I
assume they are accurate, *I* can't answer the questions. To answer the
questions by assuming they are accurate is pointless since I don't trust
the rumours.

	So *why* post the questions and the unsubstantiated rumour in
the same place? It looks like a rhetorical trick,  you should be able to
find it explained in a decent text on rhetoric.

	You're WAY out of line here unless I entirely missed the point.
Spreading unsubstatiated rumours is either slander or dangerously close.

	Also, DON'T bother to "fan flames." If you want to abuse somebody,
have the decency to do it in private. I don't want to see/pay for your
abusve behaviour.

	Yes, some people pay for netnews.

>-- 
>Kaleb Keithley                        kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov
>
>Meep Meep                             Roadrunner
>Veep veep                             Quayle

	Matthew.