Text 20935, 87 rader
Skriven 2006-01-03 22:51:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS> What questions have I ignored? 

 PK> Its more that your simple statements such as "our actions are just" is
 PK> not really an answer to the question. If your actions were just, you
 PK> would be able to qualify that justification, and so far there has been
 PK> none. At least no justificatins that I can take as being a
 PK> justification... 

I *repeat*:  What questions have I ignored?
 
 PK> Have you considered that others do not see it the same way as you?
 
 FS> I *know* they don't see it properly 
 
 PK> That is not an answer to the question, I didnt ask if they saw it
 PK> "properly", I asked if you had considered that 
 PK> they did not see it the
 PK> same way as you. Your answer is effectively an 
 PK> admission that you have
 PK> been brainwashed into responding with a position that is in conflict
 PK> with your own thoughts. Now that is spooky...
 
 FS> It seems to me you're easily spooked ... [sigh] ... as for my 
 FS> being "brainwashed", you'll never see the day *that* takes place.  

 PK> Thats probably true, I am guessing that I would not have been born
 PK> then.......;-)

Since you *obviously* have been born that supports my statement.
 
 FS> I support the US because the US is obviously acting honorable in 
 FS> defending itself. 

 PK> I agree that the US has an obligation to defend itself and have no
 PK> issues with that. I DO have an issue if that defense extends to
 PK> invading other countries in an action unrelated to that defense.
 
Are you claiming Bush didn't have good reason to believe Saddam 
Hussein was a danger to us?

 FS> If our constitution is being violated in the process that's *our*  FS>
 PK> business, not yours.

 PK> I agree with that as well, thats all your business.

OK ... 
 
 PK> Does it not concern you that the people in this echo are not exactly
 PK> queueing up to back your stance on this?
 
 FS> Why should they?  I'm stating facts.  

 PK> Well if you want people to believe your "facts", then then you need to
 PK> be able to demonstrate the truth in those "facts", and that seems to be
 PK> teh part yo are strugling with. Simply saying it is no basis for
 PK> convincing others you are right.
 
OK, which fact do you question?  Specifically, without bothering 
to attempt to slip in an ad hominem attack ...
 
 FS> Impossible.  Facts are facts.  If you disagree then show me a 
 FS> fact which is not a fact.
 FS>  
 FS> Everyone should accept facts.  There's no "queueing up" needed ...
 
 PK> Facts need to be able to be proven, and so far none of your replies
 PK> meet that requirement, because Frank Scheidt is not a valid reference
 PK> for those "facts"...
 
 FS> Huh?

 PK> You expect others to take your word as the truth without providing a
 PK> shread of proof for what you call "facts", and yet you cannot accept
 PK> what others say as the truth when they provide external sources for
 PK> their information. Are you sure you understand what the word bias
 PK> means? 

Specifically name even *one* of the facts I've cited which you 
don't believe. Just name ONE.

... Dyslexia for Cure found!

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)