Text 1736, 152 rader
Skriven 2004-09-03 11:03:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GARY MOORE
Ärende: Rule of law?
====================
-=> Quoting Gary Moore to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS> Huh?  I *never* use innuendos!  And I'm known to be 100% honest
 FS>
 GM> But, Frank, you're a liar.
 FS>
 FS> Oh?  What evidence do you have to support that absurd charge??
 
 GM> All that I need, Frank.  Would you care to see my argument?
 
 GM> I'll use your words and those of others in this forum to make my
 GM> case.
 
 FS> That's impossible unless you misquote me and/or take a few words
 FS> out of context ... but you already know that ...

 GM> Impossible?  Why would it be impossible?  You're a liar.  And I can
 GM> show how you lie by using your words.  Here's the argument.  We'll
 GM> begin with an exchange involving John Massey and Sean Dennis:
 
 JM> Well you know Ed, leave out a word here and an entire sentence
 JM> there, but they have intellectual honesty.
 
 SD> I was taught to call that "lying by omission".
 
 JM> The act may be referred to as "lying by omission," but the person
 JM> that does something like that is called unethical.
 JM> Unethical people should not be trusted.

 GM> Now we'll turn to Dawn Robicheaux for a few comments:
 
 DR> That's why I don't trust you and your friends.  They leave out
 DR> the words "a few" or "some" when making statements similar to
 DR> "Americans like killing Iraqi women and children."  They offer
 DR> arguments very similar to "surely they must love killing
 DR> Iraqi women and children because they have to build bombers,
 DR> load them with bombs, climb into the bombers, and go half-way
 DR> around the world to kill them.  They wouldn't go through that
 DR> much trouble if they didn't like what they are doing."
 DR> Using this approach to justifying such statements, one
 DR> could argue "Republicans love raping their daughters."
 DR> Note, I didn't say "all" Republicans.

 GM> Who's argument was Dawn targeting?  Yours!  Let's take a look at the
 GM> exchange which prompted her remarks.  You weren't talking about
 GM> Republicans.  You were talking about environmentalists when you
 GM> wrote: 
 FS> For example they love spiking trees in the hopes of injuring some
 FS> guy at a saw mill ...

 GM> Part of my response:
 
 GM> Now, here's your chance to be factual, Frank.  Where's the evidence
 GM> that environmentalists LOVE spiking trees?
 
 GM> Show that all environmentalists are involved in this activity, or
 GM> most of them, or even more than a few and that they LOVE to do this.
 GM> Be careful with the facts, Frank.

 GM> Here's the relevant part of your reply.  Compare it to Dawn's
 GM> argument and the remarks made by Sean Dennis and John Massey:
 
 FS> It's obvious that someone must love to do something if he's willing
 FS> to climb trees to drive spikes into them.  That's not an action
 FS> anyone would do if he didn't really want to do it.
 
 FS> Of *course* not all "environmentalists" do that, just some of them.
 FS> I didn't say *all* of them do it ... for example, if I say
 FS> people like apple pie does that mean *all* people like apple pie?
 FS> Sheeeeeeeeesh!   *Read* what I actually say, Mr. Moore.

 GM> I read what you wrote.  You mislead people.  You lie through omission
 GM> of relevant qualifiers.  You smear an entire group of people by
 GM> making blanket statements which fail to recognize that only a very
 GM> few are involved in the activity you mention.  Using questionable
 GM> arguments, you draw questionable conclusions about what they intend
 GM> and what they "love."  But you state these conclusions as fact,
 GM> without any ability to support your claims, short of a statement
 GM> from the people you are attacking affirming their intentions and
 GM> their "love."

Might I suggest you take a course in reading comprehension at a 
local community college?  Really!  It might help you to realize 
that when I said "they love spiking trees", it's clear that the 
"they" refer to the people spiking the trees.  Why was that so 
difficult for you to understand, Gary.  BTW, I'm serious about 
the reading course.  I really believe it would help you.

 GM> Dawn Robicheaux shows how your argument can be used to draw the same
 GM> kind of erroneous conclusions about others.  Using the argument put
 GM> forth by Sean, John and Dawn, I judge your words to be that of an
 GM> unethical liar.

 GM> I'll close by recognizing your little tagline taunts, Mr. Scheidt,
 GM> and once again point out that you can't pretend to know what you
 GM> claim to know without someone having done something that could
 GM> also be unethical.  

Tagline "taunts" are intended to be *humorous*, Mr. Moore ... 
[sigh] ... humorless people might find them threatening, but, 
take my word for it, Gary, most people read them, maybe chuckle a 
bit, and move on ... [sigh] ...

 GM> You stop short of making any public statements
 GM> about what you pretend to know, Mr. Snoop, because you realize you'd
 GM> have a great deal of difficulty explaining how you know what you
 GM> pretend to know.  Wouldn't you, Frank?

 GM> Further, Mr. Scheidt, were you to reveal that to which you allude,
 GM> and explain how you came to know it, you would only be proving one of
 GM> the points I've been making about the Internet for years.

 GM> Finally, Mr. Scheidt, there's the question about your motive for
 GM> making such taunts.  These kinds of taunts foster an environment of
 GM> fear and anxiety which can cripple a person.  Perhaps you enjoy being
 GM> responsible for instilling panic attacks in others.  Maybe you'd
 GM> like knowing you contributed to the onset of a heart attack.  What
 GM> purposes do your little taunts serve, Frank?  What's your motive?

Oh my, Mr. Moore (I wonder if you're related to that *other* 
misfit, Moore) but you've gone to a lot of trouble merely to 
shoot yourself in the foot.  Your "lying through omission" is a 
pathetic attempt to attack me.  Here's your basic problem, as I 
see it, Gary:  You fail to *interpret* properly what's written -- 
especially what *I* have written.  You have this misconception 
that I'm a liar thus you view my writings through "liar-focussed" 
glasses, as it were.  You don't really ask yourself (regarding my 
words), "What does he likely mean by that?"  No!  You 
misinterpret it so as to make me seem like a liar, though in your 
eyes only.

Now let's consider your weird "omission" claim.  When one writes 
*anything* there's always a lot of detail left out -- detail 
which might add to the understanding but which isn't really 
necessary for a literate reader to grasp the meaning of what he 
reads.  It's the *details* which has caused you to judge my 
writings as being filled with "lies by omission".  Think about 
it, Gary.  Now that you can see how mistaken you have been will 
you apologize?  Of *course* you won't ... heh heh heh ... BTW, 
what have I omitted (in your mind) *this* time?!?!

The fact of the matter is that you cannot come up with even one, 
single example where I have lied.  And don't bring up that 
foolish "lying by omission" idea ...

You've lost again, Gary.  Live with it!

... All hype is true and should be believed

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