🚀 go-pugleaf

On 06-10-2003 11:53, in article 3F813BAB.28898869@yahoo.com, "KStahl"
<ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> 
>> On 06-10-2003 06:01, in article 3F80E902.E7974B3C@yahoo.com, "KStahl"
>> <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 05-10-2003 17:04, in article 3F803308.31AFD2D4@yahoo.com, "KStahl"
>>>> <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Peter H. Proctor" wrote:
>>>>>> Ironic,   that Rush has been caught up in that most socialist of
>>>>>> gummit programs,  the War on Drugs...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Except that perhaps he didn't give up a fight - just surrendered.
>>>> 
>>>> He hasn't surrendered.
>>> 
>>> You know this from first hand, personal experience? I caveated my
>>> statement with "perhaps", you are attempting to state a fact for which
>>> you have no empirical support. Big difference.
>> 
>> If he had "surrendered, " which would mean turning himself in. This would be
>> all over the news if it had taken place.
>> 
>> And as Dr. Proctor has said, lack of evidence is evidence in itself.
>> 
>> EJ
> 
> Wrong use of the word surrendered. Context is everything. The topic of
> the "war on drugs" was raised. The one in which the battle is around
> drug use. In that war there are people who resist the temptation to
> become a victim of the war and then there are those who just surrender
> and join the millions of drug abusers. That was the "surrendered" I
> spoke of. It is only by coincidence that the word "surrendered" also
> applies to a person turning themselves in when accused of a crime. It
> was a terse attempt at oblique humor. So oblique that the intent was
> misunderstood. I'll take half the blame for the misunderstanding if you
> will do the same.


I won't accept your tortured definition of surrendered, as it means that you
believe you are better than other, "weaker," people because you have not
"surrendered."

The whole context of surrender in the discussion is about Rush telling the
truth (which I believe won't show drug abuse).

EJ