🚀 go-pugleaf

In group talk.euthanasia, article <553fqj$ehq@noc.van.hookup.net>,
egerk@awinc.com (Edward Gerk) wrote:

...

>You once again ignore my original point, and that is that Mr. Hofsess
>is saying that nowhere on his web site does he mention anything about
>plastic bags, and, as I have pointed out to you and everyone else,
>this is not true.  He not only mentions them, he sells a brochure on
>how to use a plastic bag to kill yourself.  I believe you took issue
>with me on this very issue. 

OK.  Let me indulge your insanity for a few moments.  Let us assume that,
because Hofsess provides information about a pamphlet that provides
information about how to use a plastic bag to augment suicide, that he
should be thrown in prison for 200 years.  If that is true, then both you
and I are guilty of the same thing, Gerk.  If one level of indirection
applies, then any level of indirection applies, and we are merely the third
level of that indirection.  Ergo, you are as guilty as he.

Now, if you are talking about whether or not Hofsess is telling the truth,
the same question comes to bear.  If he had, on his web-site, the
information on how to use the plastic bag, that would assuredly be
providing information on their use.  However, by providing information on
how to get a pamphlet that tells people how to use one, is he actually
providing information about plastic bags?  If you regard the first level of
indirection as information, yes.  However, by the same criterion, *you*
have mentioned something about plastic bags, and are as guilty as he whom
you seek to condemn.  If, on the other hand, you regard information about
plastic bags as an adjunct to suicide as actually describing how they are
used, then Hofsess is telling the truth.  You're dead meat.  If you are
telling the truth and Hofsess is lying, then you are as guilty as he is.
If you are innocent, then Hofsess is innocent.  You're in a no-win
situation here.  If your original point is true, then you are vindicated,
by all means, but equally culpable.

...

>That is the original quote.  I have proven otherwise.

Actually, Ted, we are still debating whether or not you have proven
anything.  That is what I like to call 'debate', or perhaps, 'discussion'.
You can't proactively assert victory like this without proving before all
and sundry that you're a clueless moron.  Simply restating a tenuous (at
best) proposition does not constitute proof.

..

>What's wrong, David, bad hair day?  Or is it difficult to accept that
>you have lost a debate?

Bad hair?  Really!  Do *you* have bad hair?  Can there *be* "bad hair"?
What a ridiculous concept!  What has your hair done to you lately, Ted, and
why do you hate it so?  Did your mother take offense at your hair?  Did
your classmates ridicule your hair?  Do you have Bill Gates' hair?

Oh, and by the by, you cannot win a debate on personal fiat.  If that were
even possible, then I would declare that I won in the last round.  I would
expect that to be axiomatic, but you apparrently do not realise that.  I'm
not certain what classes you could take to correct that.  "Thought 1.01"
comes to mind, but I'm not sure if anybody offers it.

>As John himself stated:
>
>"There has never been any information about plastic bags on DeathNET".
>(John Hofsess)

I see that you have difficulty using the words, "Refer to the previous
quote".

-- 
                  David C. Wright (wrightd@magic.mb.ca)
                    http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

               Atheism is a non-prophet organization.