(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3f8e230b.61551139@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On 13 Oct 2003 09:56:03 -0700,
"Hylander" wrote:
Craig Chilton <
> wrote:
"Hylander" wrote:
Craig Chilton <
> wrote:
"Hylander" wrote:
Craig Chilton <
> wrote:
"Hylander" wrote:
Craig Chilton <
> wrote:
Hylander wrote:
"Mustardismypal" <mustardismypal@aol.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
See above. Post any way you want. Do it dishonestly, and you can
expect to be exposed for that.
I try to say what I know and ask questions for that which I don't. I
also try to be concise so as to respect others...even if they disagree
with what they may think are my views.
IMHO, you didn't answer the question very well....you answered it but
glossed over details and rambled on about "its this right and that
right and this fact and that fact" but not on topic.
SPECIFICALLY **how???**
Too much information to weed through. You did eventually answer the
question about who is RRR/cultist. ie: names so no need now. I believe
you mentioned Jerry Fallwell. I'd probably agree he is on the far end
for most people who are conservative.
Doesn't matter....wherever it comes from, it is VOLUMNOUS and not
CONCISE and NOT DIRECT and full of a kind of shouting disclaimed as
EMPHASIS. It speaks for itself and also the disregard you have for
those you write to it seems.
I have a natural disregard for EVERY inconsiderate and hateful
person who seeks to TRAMPLE on the rights of millions of other people
and make their lives miserable for no good reason.
Sounds like fundamentalist eye for an eye hate for hate. But if you
want to convince people, it would make more sense to state things
concisely and not disregard them or delay answering their questions.
Do you believe fighting them is the answer then? I mean in principle?
So don't feel like
you're being picked on. The segregationists had the same sort of
problem with me. (In different ways, since Usenet didn'r exist yet,
then.)
I have a problem with segregationists too and they would have a
similar problem with me. Too bad you went through that. So what
happened between you and these segregationists and why? Which
particular race? How did this translate to your stance here on this
group?
Didn't bother me. BECAUSE of what they were doing to people.
What were they doing?
Virtually instant access to many dozens of them. And just because
I'd answered a question comprehensively before does NOT mean that
I need to RE-WRITE an answer from scratch every time someone asks
me the SAME question.
Makes sense. A website is a good way to do that. You have one correct?
You can book mark passages that specifically answer a question and
paste the appropriate link. I can tell you how that works if you want.
ie: append #answer-to-viability-question in the URL and put <a
name="answer-to-viability-question"/> in your HTML document.
That is boring and unnecessary in a newsgroup. Please stop that.
You don't like it, don't read it.
I'm not the only one. However, I often do skip long posts as do many
others. Its not so much whether it is liked as is the amount of coal
burning/bandwidth used up to transmit, and read it. That and the fact
it wastes your time too..especially if you are customizing parts and
pasting parts. It is hard to tell where one begins and ends. If you
are pasting, I ask again, along with a few others who expressed the
same thing (of varying persuasions), to please stop. That or try to
answer concisely.
You have hundreds of other posts a
day to chose from. The facts don't change. I'm not going to waste
time rewriting answers that already are complete.
So post links. If you are caught spamming, I know some who will post
you on an abuse list. It may not be usenet death penalty but it comes
close.
Also, your weasel words are only detracting from thoughtful
discussion... why not stick to more objective language.
And just WHAT "weasel-words" did I just use? Everything I just
said was 100% true, and directly-stated.
100%? No one I know can say things that are 100% true. It is
impossible to prove for one. Therefore, what would that imply? Weasel
words use sterotypes that are generalizations. Almost every
generalization is false because of a specific case. Classifying
someone you don't know as an RRR cultist is an example.
In some my resource posts, I **DO** name the leaders of the RRR
cult. Not one of the currently-posted ones, however.
What do you mean, not one of the currently posted ones?
Did you answer this question yet? What about the birth process imbues
the characteristics of a human being/person and the ability to feel
pain or have volition or personality? Can you answer in three
sentences or less?
example: oxygen in air is different and medical doctors have
proved.....that it causes pain, a stimulation of the brain's blah blah
blah which is responsible for personality and consciousness and
volition etc etc etc. See this link:
http://someone.somewhere.com/somepage.html
While the above is not a true statement, it is an example of a simple
concise answer.
.
