🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4oocq0$nri@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, dlevin2@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) writes:
>Daniel-Robert Gooch <d_gooch@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 May 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>>> 
>>> >If you take your history lessons from William Johnson, that's part
>>> >of the problem right there.
>>> 
>>> Oh Daniel-Robert!  I'm am so ******* tired of reading replies to my SPECIFIC
>>> and DOCUMENTED charges against Quebec nationalists being dismissed by people
>>> like you NOT because what I wrote is factually incorrect, BUT because my 
>>> source is not a Quebec nationalist!  If you are not able to debate the facts,
>>> don't waste the internet.
>>> 
>
>>William Johnson is not about facts, he has a clear political agenda
>>and writes with that in mind - as everybody does. 
>
>This 'relativistism' argument is always used by those who have no response to
>specific arguments.  By dismissing the person and not the argument is not a very
>good way for honest and open discussion to take place.
>
>>You don't hold up somebody's writing and say `look at the facts,'  you do your own
>>research and do your own writing.  
>
>If human beings were not allowed to use the work of others (while giving credit,
>or course) we's all still be trying to figure out the alphabet.  What is so
>wrong about saying, look here's a good argument made by X which I think
>is worth bringing to your attention?  Should I tell my friends to continue
>smoking because I personally don't know whether it causes cancer because I
>personally haven't done the research?
>
>>When I want to argue with William Johnson, I argue with with William Johnson.
>
>Are not William Johnson's ideas what we are discussing?  If they are, I don't
>buy your excuse that you won't argue these ideas with me because I'm not the
>guy who developed them.  
>
ARRETEZ D'ECRIRE EN ANGLAIS DANS NOS GROUPES BANDE D'ABRUTIS!!!!