🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WoFUkKlrZMyK070yn@gagme.wwa.com>, mark writes:

> This *is* my last comment (I hope) on this thread. I hope so, since I
> set followups....
> In article <b2Qpv*iH3@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) wrote:
> > In article <wifOkKlrZomM070yn@gagme.wwa.com>, mark writes:
> > > In article <9sXmRc1w165w@brewich.com>, dan@brewich.com (Dan Rothschild) wrote:
> > > > celeborn@brewich.com (Jay Ford) writes:
> > > > > dan@brewich.com (Dan Rothschild) writes:
> > > > > > kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:

> When all rational arguments have been used over any number of times, and
> simply called lies, or ignored, or not shown to be untrue, and when it 
> seems obvious that whatever the opinion is, based on whatever reasons, 
> the folks on your side of the argument are not willing to admit that
> we have *any* right on our side, argue that we are totally wrong, and
> rather than offer *any* compromise, simply call us thieves, etc, (and 
> what is that, other than an ad hominem?), and won't let the thread die
> (or even edit the newsgroups line), what point is there in continuing
> rational discussion? Like leading pigs to the library, it won't educate
> them, and just irritates the pigs.

One could easily flip this statement to the other side.  It would be more
accurate then.

[...]

> Talk about non-rational arguments! Let's see, I haven't arranged to have
> any laws passed yet, I want you to stop arguing this on alt.pagan, where

But that is exactly what you are trying to do!  If you are successful, you
will take rights and property away from some of those who have them now.

> it really is off charter, and you're accusing me of trying to take away
> your First Amendment rights? Come *on*, you can do better than *that*.

You guys started this thread with all the irrelevant newsgroups in the
header.  Now, you want to cut off the discussion so that only your side
gets posted in those same irrelevant newsgroups.  I wouldn't call that
fair.  It sounds more like censorship to me.

> <snip> 
> > >     mark, a workin' class stiff, who makes money the old-fashioned
> > >     way - he works for it, and *still* thinks of the *responsibilities*
> > >     of being a citizen of the republic, as opposed to those who only
> > >     want the priviliges
> > 
> > Mark, who fervently believes that he has the right to take from others (via
> > government) and redistribute it.  (A more accurate name for such activity
> > is theft.)
> 
> >                                                 Jim Pritchett
> 

What I wrote is accurate.  That is why mark keeps changing the subject and
attacking me.

> And Jim clearly believes that he lives out in the Old West, don't depend
> on any infrastructure for his quality of life, and doesn't want to
> pay for what he gets. And accuses me of ad hominem attacks, and makes
> two, or is that three, of them against me.

Errant nonsense.

[...]

> Your version of your god isn't on charter for alt.pagan, either.

See above.

> 
>     mark, glad to have left Texas

We are glad you did.  So, why are you cluttering up texas newsgroups?



                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp             "For with God nothing shall
                                                be impossible."   Luke 1:37