🚀 go-pugleaf

khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:

>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...

I'm projecting?  Maybe so, but you were the one making the
accusations.

>Do you imagine I might DIS-agree with this? 

If you agree, why did you fail to post the stated examples, or even
one?  Or at least gives dates so they can be found.

>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.

You make accusations, do not even attempt to support them in some way,
and I have a bias?  Very nice.  I questioned your bias, so you accuse
me.

>>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".

You make the accusations, but want someone else to do the search for
the proof?  You are really interesting.

>But, it all depends on what patterns of thought and/or argument you
>are used to, I guess.

Yes, I guess so.  You make assertions, give no proof, then when
questioned seem to demand reader should go to the effort of confirming
your assertions.  No thanks.

Regards, Harold
---------
"Certain signs, some of them visible to the layman as well as the
scientist, indicate that we have been watching an ice age approach for
some time without realizing what we are seeing... Scientists predict
that it will cause great snows which the world has not seen since the
last ice age thousands of years ago."
   --Betty Friedan, "The coming Ice Age", Harper's Magazine, Sep. 1958