RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« on: 2004-06-02 02:59:22 »
[Joe Dees] Considering these multiple and manifest differences, no one possessing a scintilla of fairness, justice or balance could possibly equate the two.
[Blunderov] Joe, you have a consistent thread of logical fallacy running through your recent reasoning; the one of "pointing to the greater evil". (You are not alone in this if the articles you have posted are anything to judge by.)
This fallacy is, even more than sarcasm, the last refuge of scoundrels.
It is a useless position. An example.
[Traffic Cop] You were exceeding the speed limit and I am going to impose a fine. [Speeding Motorist] What about all those other guys that were going much faster than me? Why don't you fine them instead? I am much less guilty than they are!
Another example:
[Illiberal Press] The Daily Outrage never complains about the far worse excesses of Saddam's regime and chooses instead to concentrate on the relatively minor infractions of a few bad apples amongst the noble liberators.
[Blunderov] It is always possible to "point to a greater evil". This fallacy is a particular species of 'red herring', a tactic that is designed to distract the attention away from the actual issue at hand.
This constant mistake is the worm in the heart of your rose and you will find yourself in constant trouble with Virians like, for instance, Jake, who are disinclined to fall for this stage magician misdirection.
And worse. You will find yourself readily manipulated by those who practice it themselves and you won't even know it!
Returning to the subject at hand; did you or did you not directly insult Jake? My view is that you did. The 'Alluha Akbaar' (sp?) imputation was completely gratuitous and uncalled for and amounted to an attack on Jakes character.
Blunderov, First of all, get your people right. This particular (in my considered opinion largely manufactured) issue has to do with Casey, and not with Jake, although he has also recently furnished ample (but not overly extravagant) reason for just such a request. Its singleminded and dogmatic pursuit seems to me to be a way of combining the counting of pecking-order coup with the enforcing of a punitive and undeserved tit-for-tat designed to prevent me from protesting or appealing for surcease and justice no matter how sick and disgusting the diatribes to which I am subjected onlist become. Second, degree is everything. If a law is enforced that nary a cross word shall pass unpunished, this forum will be reduced to a milquetoast pablum. Not only myself, but Hermitess, Casey, Jake, Rhino, Sebby, Lenten and even yourself have recently uttered statements that can be parsed as conforming to the violation of such an absolutist understanding. If you wanna Silence everyone and reduce this forum to nonposting, you are well on your way to doing so with such an interpretation. For those of you who are so utterly blind that you cannot see that the vicious, vile, gratuitous, extravagant, sexually perverted and continuous Irvken attacks are of another classless level entirely, I can only harbor only pity.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #2 on: 2004-06-02 05:24:18 »
No, I do not think so. Neither, I suspect, do you Casey.
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here old buddy. Perhaps you are really pissed off at Joe because of his comments in the Berg thread, but your comments do not suggest real anger or insult but rather a lawyerly toying with semantics and hair splitting. They appear to be too opportune for you, that is, your 'wounding' has been discovered in retrospect and suits your case. This makes it profoundly suspicious.
You are essentially accusing Joe of hypocrisy, but whilst you do have a point, there is no real equivalence between what Joe said to you and what Irvken was doing. Irvken was obviously and openly attacking Joe with insults in an outpouring of bile. This is forbidden in our rules.
What transpired between you and Joe in a discussion between friends does, in my view, compare.
Good and bad faith is about giving people the benefit of the doubt in matters of interpretation and this is all about interpretation, degrees of guilt and subtle distinctions. It does not help that we coarsen distinctions, retrospectively introduce absolutes and re-interpret statements not in their original context but nuanced with the context of their reinterpretation.
1. What Joe said to you does not come anywhere near what Irvken said to Joe. 2. In terms of Mens Rea, Joe has strenuously denied any ill will or abusive intent whereas Irvken implicitly accepted his actions. 3. The putative wrong committed against you by Joe is irrelevant to the Irvken issue and because of the Irvken issue, your recourse is blocked due prejudiced arising from the Irvken issue.
If you had a grievance with Joe, you ought to have raised it immediately. It is too late now. I do not think it is acceptable to keep a stockpile of perceived hurts that one can deploy weeks or months later after an adversary has, say, come under attack and seeks to protection in our rules or order. I believe it is unfair to colour repaint comments of yesterday with the colours of today's row. Finally, we cannot deny anyone their right to seek protection from the rules *regardless of their wrongdoings*. The laws protect even those who violate the laws. This is why it is illegal for a inmate to kill each other in prison. That said, such appeals must be sought in a timely manner and be directly relevant. Otherwise such appeals end up being abused - as we have seen in the past - and used in the service for political expedience and censorship.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #3 on: 2004-06-02 05:31:36 »
....ya know, for all the popularity of insulting hermit when he is no longer around, i must disagree. i tried to disagree with hermit on several occasions and was successfully shot down each and every time with very well researched and well founded counter arguments. he would fairly cite his sources and word his opposition in a kind and sensible manner. i suppose it might be popular to begrudge him for his dominance, but when we allow ourselves to do so it seems a bit pitiful...as if we are so intimidated by his successful methods and conclusions that we resent him for being too good. although i have no contact with senor hermit today, i greatly miss his contributions...i feel the CoV has robbed itself of an invaluable member due to less than honorable reasons largely involving base human emotions.
....if being a "hermit minion" means accepting rational and thouroughly documented opposition, then the CoV has fallen from intellectual grace. ok, so he insulted joe's mum...but keep in mind that joe and hermit had a LONG debate ranging several topics which found them at polar opposites. a bit of nasty personal shit is likely to arise from such situations...it does not mean that i lose the sense of the messages.
...i have no problem admitting that i will always remember hermit as being a brave, well informed, well researched and extremely rational member of the CoV. if we find ourselves running such people off, then we need to seriously re-address our purpose.
...i am no "hermit minion"; i just happened to honestly find that i agreed with him on just about everything he ever said. aside from the 'Sebby Universe'(tm) of course... =)
DrSebby. "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
Casey: "nor do I appreciate being called one of "Hermit's minions","
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #4 on: 2004-06-02 07:34:33 »
[Sebby] ...ya know, for all the popularity of insulting hermit when he is no longer around, i must disagree. i tried to disagree with hermit on several occasions and was successfully shot down each and every time with very well researched and well founded counter arguments. he would fairly cite his sources and word his opposition in a kind and sensible manner. i suppose it might be popular to begrudge him for his dominance, but when we allow ourselves to do so it seems a bit pitiful...as if we are so intimidated by his successful methods and conclusions that we resent him for being too good. although i have no contact with senor hermit today, i greatly miss his contributions...i feel the CoV has robbed itself of an invaluable member due to less than honorable reasons largely involving base human emotions. <snip>
[rhinoceros] This judgement appears to be common to most. Hermit's ratings by fellow virians are still very high -- despite all the disapproval (mine included) to the "goals over means" approach which he employed in the past. As I understanding it, Hermit tried to make up for the lack of effective rules which would keep the forum intelectually interesting, at first by using objectionable artificial means and later by working out rules, but he went a bit too far on both acounts in my opinion. He distanced himself on his own after a disagreement with a not directly related decision of CoV.
We have to face it: It is rather easy to hijack the focus of this forum, and this is one of those times that this place is not what it used to be. The diversity of the topics and the intellectual depth are seriously impaired; I am not much tempted to post something which I found interesting, in the midst of propaganda and childish whining. What keeps bringing us here is largely our memories. What brings new people here is... not much besides our declared principles, I am afraid.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #5 on: 2004-06-02 08:22:29 »
Hello Jonathan,
If you'll read through the #virus archives you'll see that I raised the issue on that very same day (5/14/04). I found it surprising that Joe would say such a thing, so I shrugged it off as another one of his emotionally-charged posts. However, I've employed the same tactic as Joe has used in the past and continues to do so to this day with re: the mother comments. He has, and I think most would agree, stockpiled that comment. Can you not see how one would accumulate evidence that is necessary to show another person's guilt? Furthermore, I'm arguing against Joe's continued attacks on others (myself included), when those same rules seemingly don't apply to him. In regards to being angered, I've attempted to maintain a rational manner throughout this thread, so you and everyone else within the CoV would not be bogged down with one verbal attack after another as has been the case in the distant, and now recent, past.
My comment was admittedly excessive, but it was nonetheless contextually related to the matter under discussion (uncaringness in the face of atrocities perpetrated against Americans by Jihadis).
I, on the other hand, had said nothing to deserve Irvken's execrable vomitus.
Joe admits to his comment being excessive. But, I shall refuse to accept the "contextually related" comment. Later, he refers to me as one of "Hermit's minions". Which I find laughable, considering I've defended Joe's rights to speak, just as I've defended everyone's rights to speak in this forum. But, that goes without saying, considering I am a free speech advocate here and elsewhere.
What bothers me, as I've stated above, is his continued verbal attacks on others. I would hope that Joe, whom I do consider to be a valuable asset to the CoV if for only his opposing viewpoints to so many here, would apply those same standards that he wants others to abide by.
To Blunderov: The "Alluha Akbar" comment was directed to me, and not at Jake. But, I think Jake would appreciate your defense of his character.
To Rhino: I'll desist on this subject because while I still feel this is an issue that needs addressing, I'd rather the CoV grow and not be bogged down by arguments over "semantics" or insults.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #6 on: 2004-06-02 08:37:47 »
[Casey] Joe, this was uncalled for.
From: joedees@*********.net To: cmanisca@*******.com Subject: Our recent thread Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:02:00 -0500
I am sending it to your cousin Bill Roh to peruse; let's see what he has to say about it.
[Casey] What is your point in employing this tactic? Do you think that I follow Bill Roh's lead? He and I, as he'll agree, differ on many issues. There are no words to describe you. No, I don't hate you, I just pity you.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #8 on: 2004-06-02 18:20:04 »
Joe,
Bill can read through the virus list as he wants; and I reckon he may do so from time to time. But, by employing this practice it struck me more that you were acting like a tattletale. If Bill does read the thread then he can discern from it what he wants. But, that won't change my opinion regarding the subject at hand. Let us agree to disagree, because as I've already noted to Rhino, I'd prefer the CoV be a place for intellectual discourse, rather than a game of oneupsmanship, or a he said/he said, forum. And, as I've already noted in my previous posts, I enjoy being one who supports free speech and what comes with it. However, and I'll stand by this claim, your Alluha Akbar post was over the top, it did resonate with me, and I would appreciate if you would refrain from that sort of inflammatory speech. It reminds me of the typical Republican and Democratit vitriol that is spat out on a near everyday basis throughout the media and you've better writing skills to stoop to that level.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #9 on: 2004-06-03 10:08:04 »
I suggest that the answer is yes.
After all, when Irvken replied to one of Joe Dees' neocon droppings, "'Disturbing' data suggest plot for summer terror" with the sensible, "blah, blah. more drivel. If it does happen will you shut the fuck up?", Joe Dees responded, Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-05-26 19:52:56
I officially call for the moderation of Irvken, who has continuously subjected me to rude remarks, vicious name calling, and unacceptable personal attacks, sometimes having absolutely nothing to do with my posts. This began with his repeating Hermit's mother-slander some time ago and has continued to the present day. If he can't keep a civil tongue in his head, he should at least keep his incivilities off this list.
Since then, a quick search of our archives (e.g. search for "hermit" (and "hrmit") by "Joe Dees" in the last 120 days) will turn up numerous instances of Joe Dees inserting "rude remarks" (e.g. Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-06-01 23:37:37
Please do. Any objective review of the incident, not colored by Bush-hatred, anti-war fervour, and personal animus, will have to conclude that: list of incorrect conclusions
4) If you take such action, I would like to file a counterclaim of vicious and ideology-inspired harassment, based upon the contents of this thread. Resorting to tag-team smitings of my posts by Hermitic minions, as has recently happened, while they also, tag-team fashion, applaud each other in order to compenste for my smiting of their insults, should not affect such a judgment, except to confirm these contentions. If a person's character is known by the character of his adversaries, I hope I soon reach -100; I would consider it a badge of honor.
Attacking not only Casey, but all members of Meridion) as usual having nothing much to do with anything... As hypocricy is a Virian sin, and silencing Irvken (whose comment on Joe's mother-fixation occured only after Joe called for his silencing) and not silencing Joe Dees would be hypocritical, I'm sure the CoV would not do this.
So without further ado, I officially call for the moderation of Joe Dees, who has continuously subjected the list (including me) to rude remarks, vicious name calling, and unacceptable personal attacks, not mentioning floods of uninvited cut&pastes and references to neoconidiocies usually having absolutely nothing to do with any other posts. This began when Joe Dees called Hermit a bigot, an antisemite, a nazi and a fuckwit. Joe Dees then took offense to Hermit's response with an observation on the likelihood that Dees' insanity and propensity to flood the CoV with cut & paste articles were probably inherited from his insane, leaky old mother - and has continued to the present day despite the fact that I have not been active on this list since October 2003. I (and many others who have commented on Joe's apparant ongoing obsession about this and aspersions) suggest that if he can't keep a civil tongue in his head, he should at least keep his incivilities off this list.
Thanking David Lucifer in advance
The Lurking Hermit (Who, being late to this party and using "Dees reasoning" is now apparently a Casey-Sebby-Blunderov-Rhino-etc minion).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #10 on: 2004-06-03 17:18:26 »
[hermit] > Since then, a quick search of our archives (e.g. search for "hermit" (and "hrmit") by "Joe Dees" in the last 120 days) will turn up numerous instances of Joe Dees inserting "rude remarks" (e.g. [quote from: Joe on 2004-06-01 at 21:37:37] Please do. Any objective review of the incident, not colored by Bush-hatred, anti-war fervour, and personal animus, will have to conclude that: list of incorrect conclusions so those reaching a different conclusion (most members of Meridion (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=repIndex)) are termed irrational) ,
[Lucifer] I don't consider the above a personal attack.
[hermit] > "vicious name calling" (e.g. [quote from: Joe on 2004-06-01 at 21:37:37] "execrable Hermit") and
[Lucifer] This may be a personal attack, but just barely.
[hermit] >"unacceptable personal attacks" (e.g. [quote from: Joe on 2004-06-01 at 21:37:37] 4) If you take such action, I would like to file a counterclaim of vicious and ideology-inspired harassment, based upon the contents of this thread. Resorting to tag-team smitings of my posts by Hermitic minions, as has recently happened, while they also, tag-team fashion, applaud each other in order to compenste for my smiting of their insults, should not affect such a judgment, except to confirm these contentions. If a person's character is known by the character of his adversaries, I hope I soon reach -100; I would consider it a badge of honor.Attacking not only Casey, but all members of Meridion) as usual having nothing much to do with anything...
[Lucifer] I don't consider the above a personal attack.
[hermit] >As hypocricy (http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html) is a Virian sin, and silencing Irvken (whose comment on Joe's mother-fixation occured only after Joe called for his silencing) and not silencing Joe Dees would be hypocritical, I'm sure the CoV would not do this.
[Lucifer] If you wish to lobby for a Silencing of Joe based soley on the borderline case of "execrable Hermit", then let me know and I'll consult the other archons.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #11 on: 2004-06-03 19:35:21 »
I think I'm confused. I know that Irvken was "silenced." But you seem to be saying here that the only current reason for a "silencing" is a "personal attack"? If this is so, and if:
"You only disagree with me out of personal animus and not from a reasoned perspective"
and
"You are engaging in vicious and ideology-inspired harassment of me"
or even
"You are just a ditto headed minion"
are not (according to your previous judgement) "personal attacks"; and:
"You are a shitty (excrement covered) person"
is only "possibly" a "marginal ["just barely" and "borderline"]" personal attack, then please tell me what would, in your opinion, constitute a "non-marginal personal attack", and which post of Irvken's did constitute the "non-marginal personal attack" which got him banned for a week?
Please notice that the "non-person attacking" statements established above, are formed by simply omitting the falsified conditionals of the original so as to make the theoretical insults overt statements. Just as "Irvken would be a knee-jerk antiwar fuckwit, were he to disagree with me that Bush is the greatest statesman on Earth" actually means "Irvken is a knee-jerking fuckwit" iif Irvken feels as I feel sure he does on this issue. Similarly, "If David Lucifer were to dare considering banning Joe Dees, then he would be an execrable minion" would become "David Lucifer is an execrable minion" if David Lucifer were to ban (or even consider banning) Joe Dees. This is because a conditional predicated on a premise known to be false - or where the recipient may reasonably be expected to understand it as being false, is not conditional at all but a simple assertion or, in the latter case, if it is known that it will be understood as such. If you can't figure this out, perhaps it is time to retake Logic 101 (<< a very Dees like implicit insult masquerading as a putative conditional).
Seriously, we still seem to have a huge disconnect between your definition of a "non-marginal personal attack" and what I would consider to be attempted insult sufficient to result in at least a silencing. And in doing this, I would insist on ignoring "him first", "no, I'm just laying waste your country and killing your children in reprisal for your potential to insult me" type regressions (beloved of the post 911 neocons, but as Blunderov has repeatedly observed, always wrong). More topically, we also have (unless I missed something - not impossible) a clear silencing of Irvken - ostensibly for "blah, blah. more drivel. If it does happen will you shut the fuck up?" (at least, that is where the "moderation demand" I saw was made). How is this a "personal attack"? And if it wasn't, was the "moderation demand" itself not a "personal attack" - which should perhaps have been grounds for some form of response. Certainly, it appeared to me lurking in the shadows as if Irvken took the "moderation demand" as an attack (and looking at the dynamics, it probably was meant as such).
In the meantime, I think Rhino's response to your question re war was right on the money and exactly what I - and others - have been trying to say. The trouble is not "war talk" - "war talk" is, however unfortunately, topical - and probably will be right into the calamitious recession which has historically followed peaks in the energy price (and why it may be a good idea for the world, if not for the US, for the Republicans to steal the coming elections - the recession may be bad enough to finish whoever is in power as a political entity). The trouble isn't even Joe Dees (no matter how much brain damage the posts he bothers to write suggest). The problem is with Joe Dees' obsessive compulsion, excess of hours and cut&paste key. A glimpse at his 4451 posts, most mere cut and pastage, and which outnumber the next 4 most prolific posters added together should prove the point.
As poll after poll and statement after statement has shown that few Virians want Dees shoved down their gullets - Nor (in my opinion), do Virians want Dees dominating any area of the BBS - unless perhaps we create one for "Heretics", "Joe Dees" or "Nasty Business and other Neocon/Israeli Propaganda" - and make the clear statement that his posting does not represent the CoV, or the perspective of any but a miniscule to vanishing proportion of our members, I think this problem will continue to fester.
More generally, speaking for myself, today I'd want to see a clear "No harm" (to people at large, and the CoV in particular) policy in place and strictly enforced before being sufficiently attracted to any forum to devote time to it, or to advocate it to others. I'd go so far as to argue that this is necessary (in my opinion) for any forum to conform to the Virian Virtues and eschew the Virian Sins. I think that I speak for others as well. We know that the third-chimp shares a finely-tuned sense of "fairness" with his cousins. Right now, all my intelligence, all of my education, all of my common sense, all the years I have been a Virian, most of them very active in the community, and even after a long interval distancing myself from the disagreements, leave me utterly unable to tell what words you will take to be a "non-marginal personal attack" - and what you will not. I cannot even begin to guess where the lines will be drawn for "war posts" and who will be allowed to murkify them - and who will not. I suggest that others are feeling the same way. And I think that this is both unfair and the wrong way to build a community. And I certainly don't think that "barring subjects" on penalty of silencing is the right way to go.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you are avoiding Meridon and what it could do for us - and I don't know why. Why not set some "minimum visibility" for all postings to some reasonable and generally attainable number. Say 5. The default. Make this apply from the web, wiki and email as it currently does for posting to the wiki, with the difference that postings from people with lower ratings are still allowed, just not generally visible unless requested by the viewing member setting the "minimum visibility" to some lower number. This would solve the problem on a generic basis and allow the forum to decide who should be able to represent us. From a technical perspective, this could be handled by three fields for each member (and a default set for guests). One for each of our forums (web, mail, wiki). The default set could be established for each by a simple vote. A further refinement might be "friend" and "enemy" lists per member, allowing members to guarantee the visibility - or invisibility - of posts from certain parties. That wouldn't take much more code - and as this is a refinement of some off-list discussions with others, including some who have volunteered as code-slaves (especially Simul), I'm sure it is doable with minimum effort on your part.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
The truth cannot be construed as an insult, so I say, without fear of censure, that the continuously mother-slandering Hermit continues to wage his hatred-inspired jihad against me, and now seems to possess no other list purpose. Remeber that he originally began resorting to personally attacking my mother and myself when he could not counter my contentions re: the war on terrorists.
The list rules engineered by him are the reason I have to post directly to the BBS rather than replying to emails, causing already noticed context confusion. Now, after a blessedly lengthy absence, he rear his slanderous head once again, and once again employing his signature rhetorical pretzeling of logic and rationality, with the absolutely from-him predictable, completely unreasonable and blatantly ideological suggestion that my messages, whether they be forwarded articles, URL's, or personally authored comments, be shunted off into a memory hole where they do not disturb the cognitive assonance of the anti-bush, anti-war and anti-american contingent among the CoV.
If my position is so wrong and his is so right, why have I been so right and he so wrong - about the ease of our Afghanistan operations, the lack of starving and freezing refuggees from both countries, and the direct and ancillary benefits of these operation (50 million freed from mullocracy and dictatorship, Libya's forsaking WMD's, North Korea's entering into six-member talks, and the revelation and rolling up of Khan's covert nuclear proliferation network)? I leave this question for the membership to consider and contemplate, hopefully without bias and rancor, and with reason and objectivity.
BTW: Irvken's first Hermitically inspired slander against my mother was way before my calling for his moderation; his last, sexually deviant mother-slander, however, was AFTER Lucifer had officially Silenced him, and constitutes a clear case of flaunting Lucifer's decision.
[Matt Arnold] I recommend that war discussion be restricted to the BBS, and off the e-mail list. That way it's not being censored.
[David Lucifer] Good idea, Matt. Effective immediately all messages on the topic of terrorism and/or the war must be posted only to the Serious Business board on the BBS. I will be the sole judge of which messages fit the bill. I will strive to be reasonble, but best err on the side of caution.
[David Lucifer] Anyone that breaks this rule will be Silenced (banned from the list and BBS) for 1 week, with the duration of the Silencing doubling on each successive infraction.
[Hermit] followed by a virulence filled note from Joe Dees - demonstrating Joe Dees' faulty memory, inability to evaluate or assess propaganda, long on assertion and short on substance - and containing the following: Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-06-03 20:00:15
If my position is so wrong and his is so right, why have I been so right and he so wrong - about the ease of our Afghanistan operations, the lack of starving and freezing refuggees from both countries, and the direct and ancillary benefits of these operation (50 million freed from mullocracy and dictatorship, Libya's forsaking WMD's, North Korea's entering into six-member talks, and the revelation and rolling up of Khan's covert nuclear proliferation network)?
I cannot even begin to guess where the lines will be drawn for "war posts" and who will be allowed to murkify them - and who will not.
. I wonder if David Lucifer would ascertain if this is "on the topic of terrorism and/or the war" or not, and if it is, whether it is "sufficiently significantly" about "terrorism and/or the war" to fall under the current proscription and its consequences?
[Hermit] If not, would a response refuting Joe Dees also bypass the "proscription"? To borrow from Joe Dees, "I leave this question for" [David Lucifer] "to consider and contemplate, hopefully without bias and rancor, and with reason and objectivity."
BTW: [Joe Dees' latest "war talk" post] was [made] AFTER Lucifer had officially [declared it off-topic], and [possibly] constitutes a clear case of flaunting Lucifer's decision.
[Hermit] Unlike Joe Dees, I'll let David Lucifer decide if it is a clear case or not. I don't pretend to have a clue.
Kind Regards to most
The Somewhat Lurking Hermit Who observes that Joe Dees' mental state appears to have deteriorated since I last bothered to notice him. I'd hardly thought it possible, but at least it excuses me from having to waste the time formulating a response to his readily refuted (try e.g. http://www.antiwar.com) apparently delusional assertions.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Ad hominem attack and a whining appeal to authority are poor substitutes for refutation and rebuttal, but are, apparently, all that Hermit can muster. Hermit full well knows - or should, since he wrote them - that I can dredge up plenty of posts from the archives to support my contentions. In fact, he is most likely hoping I will do so on this thread, so he can cry, "War Talk! Silence Him!" I only slightly pause to mention the clueless and contradictory hypocrisy that is regnantly and rampantly on conspicuous display when, in the VERY SAME POST, he inserts a link to the blatantly propagandistic Antiwar.org. Of course, he would continue to frequent such sites, if only to receive his periodic Bushatred slant and dogmatism fix; one only wonders why he would omit his other fave, the Smirking Chimp, as one remembers that he once had high (for him) ambitions of morphing this very site into a clone of them - and stated so onlist. I will not, however, assert that Hermit's mental state has deteriorated, he has, as far as I am able to ascertain, always been like this.
Author
Logged
