[at-l] Y'know, it's really, really hard......

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
> >"...,you've reverted to 7 year-old style name-calling.  And you're not 
>even
> >good at it," thinks Jim.
>
>Who, like TJ, seems not to have noticed that I was mostly echoing Jim's 
>comments
>about me, not making up new invectives. Well, for the benefit of those who
>wisely are not paying close attention, I did add my opinion that Jim was
>"factually wrong" about me in places, though mostly he only "distorted" my
>comments.

No, Bob - you weren't "echoing Jim's comments about you" cause Jim made no 
direct comments about "YOU".  Your failure to understand that those words 
applied to the "IDEAS" that you took from a book and had no application to 
you personally is entirely your failure.  And that's what makes you an 
amateur - the fact that you lack the ability to discriminate between 
comments/criticism/disagreement with your facts and 
comments/criticism/disagreement with you as a person.  You assume that ANY 
disagreement is personal.  You're totally celf-centered.  Get over it.

No - I didn't distort a single thing you said - my answers were addressed to 
precisely what you had written - as you had written it.  My replay was 
written as a "Reply all" - and there was no reason for me to change even a 
single word of what you had written.  Any distortion was entirely in your 
mind.

You, in turn, failed to answer any single point in the discussion.

Nor was I "factually wrong" - everything I wrote was fact, to a large degree 
from sources that you obviously fail to use, your problem being that (by 
your own words) you read only those sources that agree with your particular 
prejudices.  By doing so, you miss more than half the available information 
in the world and are therefore nearly always "factually challenged."


Now - you also claimed that I was (in your own words):
>carping, whining, complaining,>hysterical, factually wrong, distorted, and 
>entirely >negative political>diatribe.

I'd suggest VERY strongly that if you're gonna make that kind of statement, 
you back it up with specifics.  Personally, I have no use whatever for 
"carping, whining, and complaining" and have never been accused of such by 
any reasonable person. You're the only one who's ever been asinine enough to 
accuse me of hysteria.  And there was nothing even remotely political, much 
less negative in what I wrote - it was straight-up-and-on-the-rocks science 
and/or history.   And frankly - a lot more positive than what you wrote.

So far you ain't doin' well as far as "debate" is concerned.  You came in 
here a couple years ago and wanted to "debate important issues" - and you 
were told to get lost.  The real problem though , is that you don't have a 
clue about HOW to debate.  You really should learn that disagreement with 
your facts is not a personal attack - and that you should actually answer 
the arguments that others offer in response to yours.  Otherwise you're not 
debating - you're just sliding into nitpicking, preaching and/or personal 
attacks.

Now - along that same line of thought, and related to your failure to answer 
ANY of my responses to your original contentions - I asked what solution you 
(or anyone else) might have for the global warming you believe in so 
desperately.  And you failed entirely to answer the question - instead, you 
went into an anti-government, anti-business diatribe.  Even assuming for the 
moment that your version of the problem is correct, the immediate problem 
with your answer is that any real "solution" to your perceived problem has 
nothing whatever to do with any government - or business.  The "solution" 
has to be - MUST BE - first framed in terms of what's possible 
scientifically, economically and socially.  AND --- it MUST BE framed in 
terms of a GLOBAL solution.

You apparently failed entirely to even understand the basic requirements of 
the question.  You replied only in the context of a "local" (i.e. - 
presumably US) solution - which is patently NOT a solution to the "problem." 
  There was also no apparent realization that formulation of the scientific, 
economic and social solution must precede any political solution.  Otherwise 
you'd simply be creating more a bigger problems.  And you replied ONLY in 
political terms.

Now - given all that - you absolutely DID "revert to 7 year-old style 
name-calling."

And you really aren't very good at it. Even Sloetoe isn?t all that 
proficient.  And he has two kids to set the example for him.   But the Toe 
and I will probably discuss this at the Ruck.

Damn bloody amateurs.......................

_________________________________________________________________
High-speed users?be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet 
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1