🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33031ac3.145814111@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brshears@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
>
>>Doug Bashford <bashford@psnw.com> wrote:
>
>>>...has it come to my attention that in the past you have copied
>>>long anti-environmental passages complete with footnotes,
>>>unattributed, directly from right-wing radio talk show comedian
>>>Rush Limbaugh's book: *The Way It Aught to Be*, to the Net.
>>>Do you deny this? 
>>
>>Sometime around Feb 1996 there was a thread visible
>>on Aus.politics re "Goldilocks and the Ozone Layer", that saw
>>Grieg Ebeling making quite a few claims along -- let's just say -- 
>>"suspiciously parallel lines". 
>>
>>Some of the "explanations" he used were also remarkably
>>similar to what pass for footnotes in Rushbo's book. A few of the
>>c1970 references cited in both cases were the same.
>>
>>But, of course, that doesn't "irrefutably prove" anything.
>
>One reason it does not prove anything is, why should I believe you?
>Only the most irresponsible person would make such accusations without
>proof.  

One suspects you're projecting...
Do you imagine I might DIS-agree with this? 

In any case, why do you seem to assume I'm THAT kind of
"irresponsible person" when an alternative hypothesis (i.e.
that what I said was true is actually the case) "exaplains" the same
observations (i.e. the relevent post). I.e. you seem to have
a biased and/or pre-determined interpretation for the facts.

>If you have any, you should post it.  Otherwise, you should
>just keep you assertions to yourself.

Why bother? You probably wouldn't believe it (based on the line 
of "reasoning", above). Surprisingly, it seems you can't
think ahead NOW to your probably future objection "it could be faked".
(Hence one imagines you are either being disingenuous; or are simply
very dumb).

On the other hand,
as I'm refering to something posted to Usenet within the 12m -- and I am 
posting this claim to Usenet (including the relevant newsgroup) -- it 
should at least be obvious that I am prepared to at least make a claim that 
should be trivially refuted by any non-newbie to the relevant groups.
(It should also be obvious I _KNOW_ that some people are presently
reading this who have some familiarity with the events of 1 y ago).

Additionally, there are also (I should have gathered this is public
knowlege) sites that gather usenet items from "way back", and these
can be index-searched. Such information would be OBJECTIVE -- rather
than (as you have called for) some possibily quite SUBJECTIVE
"proof".

But, it all depends on what patterns of thought and/or argument you
are used to, I guess.
-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym