| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"towelie" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2005 06:50:55 PM |
| Object: |
OT: New rule |
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
15 Oct 2005 10:40:27 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xPSdnddCV8pBCMzeRVn-1g@centurytel.net:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position,
they are not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody
in favor, say "I".
eye!!!
--
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 12:42:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:40:27 GMT, Mark <mark@no.answer.net> wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xPSdnddCV8pBCMzeRVn-1g@centurytel.net:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position,
they are not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody
in favor, say "I".
eye!!!
"I"! :-) It should be an official fallacy. It probably already is, I just
don't know the name for it. I propose an unofficial name for it, though: "The
two wrongs fallacy". Whatcha' think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 01:49:34 AM |
|
|
In article <2tp3l1hjdeb1jamhfomk489923816nfpsf@4ax.com>,
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:40:27 GMT, Mark <mark@no.answer.net> wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xPSdnddCV8pBCMzeRVn-1g@centurytel.net:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position,
they are not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody
in favor, say "I".
eye!!!
"I"! :-) It should be an official fallacy. It probably already is, I just
don't know the name for it. I propose an unofficial name for it, though:
"The
two wrongs fallacy". Whatcha' think?
It's called 'Tu quoque' which can be translated as 'you too'.
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/tuquoque.asp
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
15 Oct 2005 07:19:39 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xPSdnddCV8pBCMzeRVn-1g@centurytel.net:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they
are not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in
favor, say "I".
I'm almost tempted to unplonk JTEM and Yang just to see if they respond to
this one.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country
is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints
about human rights violations heard from there.
The greater the number of complaints being aired,
the better protected are human rights in that country."
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 06:54:46 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone:
I'm almost tempted to unplonk JTEM and Yang just to see if they respond
to
this one
Please do!
Debates between them and you, are always interesting
So at least. . . .
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 01:51:45 AM |
|
|
In article <xPSdnddCV8pBCMzeRVn-1g@centurytel.net>,
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
Aye,aye, Sir!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 06:20:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
Agreed.Two wrongs don't make a right and never have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Fred Stone Was For towelie's "New Rule" Before He was Against it. |
18 Oct 2005 12:24:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
EYE!
===============================================
"A bad Republican doesn't justify what a bad Democrat does"
-Fred Stone, 1/1/2004
"As opposed to at least a dozen talking heads peddling the Democrats'
agenda for free.
As opposed to any number of allegedly "real reporters" who lob
softballs at democrats and reprint DNC press releases verbatim.
As opposed to any number of Democrats caught spreading false rumors
about Republicans. "
-Fred Stone, 2/14/2005
=====================================================
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1975 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone Was For towelie's "New Rule" Before He was Against it. |
18 Oct 2005 12:22:48 PM |
|
|
You and Fred Stone actually love eachother don't you:)
Think about it,
Peter van Velzen
Oktober 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone Was For towelie's "New Rule" Before He was Against it. |
18 Oct 2005 12:31:34 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2005 10:22:48 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
You and Fred Stone actually love eachother don't you:)
He does hate it when I factcheck him
===============================================
"A bad Republican doesn't justify what a bad Democrat does"
-Fred Stone, 1/1/2004
"As opposed to at least a dozen talking heads peddling the Democrats'
agenda for free.
As opposed to any number of allegedly "real reporters" who lob
softballs at democrats and reprint DNC press releases verbatim.
As opposed to any number of Democrats caught spreading false rumors
about Republicans. "
-Fred Stone, 2/14/2005
=====================================================
Think about it,
Peter van Velzen
Oktober 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1975 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone Was For towelie's "New Rule" Before He was Against it. |
18 Oct 2005 01:53:32 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2005 10:22:48 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
You and Fred Stone actually love eachother don't you:)
I was thinking the same thing, Peter. I had thought about suggesting that they
go get a room or something. ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
18 Oct 2005 03:28:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
I'll say "I" if the others will do it too.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
19 Oct 2005 01:08:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:28:14 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
I'll say "I" if the others will do it too.
I'm all for convicted Democrat politicians serving their time.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1980 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
19 Oct 2005 02:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:08:29 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:28:14 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
I'll say "I" if the others will do it too.
I'm all for convicted Democrat politicians serving their time.
As long as convicted Republicans do it too.
atheist@home#1554
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1980 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
19 Oct 2005 02:28:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:19:01 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:08:29 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:28:14 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
I'll say "I" if the others will do it too.
I'm all for convicted Democrat politicians serving their time.
As long as convicted Republicans do it too.
Accountability should be expected regardless of ideology.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1980 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
19 Oct 2005 04:12:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:28:14 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:19:01 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:08:29 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:28:14 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
I'll say "I" if the others will do it too.
I'm all for convicted Democrat politicians serving their time.
As long as convicted Republicans do it too.
Accountability should be expected regardless of ideology.
More likely to get excuses when politics are involved though.
atheist@home31554
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1980 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka Earl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
17 Oct 2005 02:34:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
Since when do christians and trolls give a damn about rules?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 07:42:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
"I".
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 02:26:28 PM |
|
|
TV's Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
"I".
It's unanimous. I propose naming it "Stone's Law".
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 02:45:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:26:28 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
TV's Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:50:55 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in favor, say
"I".
"I".
It's unanimous. I propose naming it "Stone's Law".
LOL! You know, I honestly forgot all about that. That could have a double
meaning, too - as in the old saying, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones"? A perfectly applicable saying for the behavior in question. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 06:52:07 AM |
|
|
Wait a minute
what does this mean exactly?
A republican is not allowed to say:
"The Democrats also defended their political position" ?
I think you mean: "Defending their unfair acts"
I wich case I would - of course - say I
See: I. . . . .
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 11:49:53 AM |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2005 04:52:07 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Wait a minute
what does this mean exactly?
A republican is not allowed to say:
"The Democrats also defended their political position" ?
I think you mean: "Defending their unfair acts"
I wich case I would - of course - say I
See: I. . . . .
I'm not sure if you got it or not. Here's my take on it: It means when
someone's accusing you of something, don't try to defend yourself by pointing to
someone else's misdeeds. A person is only trying to deflect attention from
their shame when they do this. It's not wrong for one to point to someone
else's misdeeds in and of itself, it's just wrong to do so in order to evade
accountability for one's own actions.
Be it, say, a Clinton supporter pointing to Shrub's failures whenever someone
criticizes the Clinton administration, or a Shrub supporter harping about
Clinton in response to criticism of Shrub. Either way should be a no-no, though
sadly, otherwise sane, rational individuals seem to do it all the time.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
17 Oct 2005 01:08:41 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck:
Be it, say, a Clinton supporter pointing to Shrub's failures whenever
someone
criticizes the Clinton administration, or a Shrub supporter harping
about
Clinton in response to criticism of Shrub. Either way should be a
no-no, though
sadly, otherwise sane, rational individuals seem to do it all the time.
Peter:
I suppose that is what towelie tried to say, but he said
"when defending their own political position" the only verb being
"defending"
in "the other party did it to" "did it" would - in feel - have to refer
to "defending"
Which is something completely different altogether.
I do agree, it should be a no-no
however I fear many in this newsgroup are doing it
whether it is reps and ems, israelis and palestines, theists and
atheists.
Everyone seems to be seeing to splinter in the other mens eye:)
I try to remember towelie
next time I sees such a cop-out
Greetings
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eddie wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
15 Oct 2005 06:55:57 PM |
|
|
What? You don't like it when people reduce an adult conversation to
third-grade name-calling? I find it amusing when so-called
intellectual debates revert to childish whining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
16 Oct 2005 06:26:35 AM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2005 16:55:57 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
What? You don't like it when people reduce an adult conversation to
third-grade name-calling? I find it amusing when so-called
intellectual debates revert to childish whining.
Well, simple things amuse simple minds....
Just teasing, Eddie. Actually, I pretty much agree with you. Although,
at least here in alt.atheism, the conservatives seem to be a bit more
prone to that, both sides are guilty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
15 Oct 2005 08:23:09 PM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
From now on, when one is defending their own political
position, they are
not allowed to say "The (other party) did it too!" Anybody in
favor, say "I".
Always was a rule of my mothers.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: New rule |
15 Oct 2005 08:34:33 PM |
|
|
Does that mean that Nahhh-ahhh !! is not acceptable as a considered
response.?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
