Religions > Atheism > Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion (was: Re: "Is there a Real God?" 1922 by Marshall J. Gauvin)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David Sienkiewicz" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2003 08:03:20 PM |
| Object: |
Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion (was: Re: "Is there a Real God?" 1922 by Marshall J. Gauvin) |
"yours truly" <...@...com> wrote in message news:<3f3eb3ae_9@athenanews.com>...
< snip spam >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sharon+author:david.sienkiewicz%40attbi.com&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=d&selm=35fa3772.0307150049.6fc016cb%40posting.google.com&rnum=15
You're being held accountable, Sharon.
.
|
|
| User: "David Stinkashitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion (was: Re: "Is there a Real God?" 1922 by Marshall J. Gauvin) |
22 Aug 2003 03:33:45 PM |
|
|
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion...
Your idea of intelligent discussion seems to be choosing a victim and then
using google to follow that person around, posting abusive remarks after
everything that person ever posts on any usenet group whatsoever, Dave.
How then could a loser like yourself possibly have anything to say about
what anybody else's idea of intelligent discussion might be?
Inquiring minds want to know, Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Sienkiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion (was: Re: "Is there a Real God?" 1922 by Marshall J. Gauvin) |
23 Aug 2003 01:27:52 AM |
|
|
David Stinkashitz <davidstinkashitz@pompousignorantbastards.org> wrote in message news:<NfydncBgCf36HduiXTWJhA@fcc.net>...
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion...
Your idea of intelligent discussion seems to be choosing a victim and then
using google to follow that person around, posting abusive remarks after
everything that person ever posts on any usenet group whatsoever, Dave.
Yes, it might SEEM that way, Ted. But the facts are much more
complicated than that. So complicated, in fact, that your tiny little
mind can barely comprehend.
You see, Ted, I know and you know that this is just another of your
tactics to avoid the specific challenges put to you in response to
things YOU have said.
And Ted? Try not to be too paranoid, but I read LOTS of newsgroups.
How then could a loser like yourself possibly have anything to say about
what anybody else's idea of intelligent discussion might be?
When did you stop beating your wife, Ted?
It's almost the same kind of question, requiring, as it does, some
agreement as to certain presumptions.
Inquiring minds want to know, Dave.
Which "inquiring minds" would THOSE be, Ted?
Say, Ted, how old was Monica Lewinsky when she was having her affair
with Clinton?
Do new cars REALLY not pollute if maintained properly?
Those are some of the questions you have used abusive behavior to
avoid, all while interjecting yourself into threads in which you were
not a part; and it all started when you decided to call me an "idiot"
for exposing Ed Conrad as the fraud that he is.
Ted, you opened up a Pandora's box when you did that.
You will find it impossible to close.
< repost >
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
You're a liar, Ed.
Really, Dave?
Yes, Ted - really.
Haven't you pretty much lost any credibility you might have
ever had calling people liars and cowards by overusing the words, Dave?
http://tinyurl.com/kuxs
I find this particular URL humorous in that the first message it lists
was written by Ed.
But for now, Ted, let's consider a couple of things.
First, for one who makes so much noise about avoiding dealing with
such an obvious "mental defective" as I am supposed to be, you also
like to make some noise about my alleged "overuse" of terms and
interjecting yourself into threads in which you were not previously a
part.
That doesn't bother me, Ted, but it does give one pause, doesn't it?
If you are being honest with your "mental defective" excuse, why do
you find it necessary to keep tossing in these kinds of things?
You did it LONG before I allegedly "stalked" you, so that can't be the
reason.
Secondly, I still find it interesting that you are more interested in
MY use of the terms and not so much that there is cowardice and there
are lies being told. Don't you think that's more important?
Of course, since YOU are one of those to whom I refer as "liar" and
"coward," it's pretty obvious that yours is not an objective
evaluation of the situation. The fact is that you ARE a liar and you
ARE a coward. Your tactics make this quite clear.
Ted, if whale evolution is "impossible" and those who accept it are
"stupid," why is it that you can't provide a reasonable and scientific
explanation for the appearance of teeth in baleen whale embryos that
later recede during development?
Is it really true that modern cars do not pollute if they are
maintained properly?
How old was Monica Lewinsky, Ted?
Ted, when you first wanted to complain about my use of the terms
"liar" and "coward," you showed us a URL that you had created from a
search and you told us that there were some 80,000+ examples of my
calling others "liar" and "coward." However, when some of us ran that
URL, we found the incidence to be less than 500.
Of course, you also wanted to pretend to marvel that I could have
called 80,000+ people "liar" and "coward." You were obviously too
incompetent to understand that even if the numbers were correct,
that's the number of MESSAGES in which those terms appear, not the
number of specific persons to whom those terms might have been
directed.
At any rate and as I said, we checked your URL and found the incidence
to be less than 500. YOU blamed Google for that. The fact that you
did not represent the search correctly and that you misrepresented the
results did not discourage you in the least.
Then you ran it again and came up with a more reasonable number -
closer to the under 500 that we had found. You again pretended to
marvel that I had referred to that many people as "liar" and "coward,"
but I responded again and pointed out the same things - the numbers
are MESSAGES, not persons; and I had only referred to a handful of
such people in that manner.
I asked you if this was not hypocrisy and pointed out the incidence of
the use of the words "*****," "idiot," and "stupid" in messages
authored by you. I asked if you were complaining about name-calling
and how you could do that when you are so liberal in that tactic
yourself; and with generally much less justification.
As usual, you had no answer. You ran.
Ted, I have no problem with my words. Unlike you, I don't run from my
own words and I stand by them until someone shows me that I am wrong
or I discover that for myself. I don't run from my own words, Ted,
and when I am shown to be wrong I will even retract them.
You use all of this as a diversionary tactic to run from your words.
And to your dismay, you are discovering that none of your normal
bullying, diversionary or cowardly tactics will discourage me from
challenging you and showing you to be the intellectual lightweight
that you appear to be.
And Ted, the juvenile take on my name is noted. It's very amusing if
only because I know that it's all you can do. You don't have anything
else you can actually add to a discussion or debate.
It's just another cowardly tactic.
Velikovsky was a crank, too, Ed.
Really, Dave?
Yes, Ted - he was.
Velikovsky and Albert Einstein were buddies at the Prussian
Scientific Academy and later at Princeton University. And your credentials
to be calling members of that sort of a club "cranks" are what, Dave?
Inquiring minds want to know.
My "credentials" are a knowledge of the history of science, of history
in general, and the history between these two. It's entirely
possible, Ted, that people can be "buddies" and disagree radically on
any number of issues. That Einstein and Velikovsky were on friendly
terms in no way supports any implied contention - as you are making
here - that Einstein was a supporter of Velikovsky's crank ideas. The
fact is that he was not.
And by the way, Ted, as long as we're asking about credentials, we can
note for the record that I have indicated mine in the past - advanced
degrees in law, history and business.
What about you, Ted?
< /respost >
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion (was: Re: "Is there a Real God?" 1922 by Marshall J. Gauvin) |
22 Aug 2003 04:07:09 PM |
|
|
This could be either Sharon or Jistanass. I vote for Jistanass.
Tom
"David Stinkashitz" <davidstinkashitz@pompousignorantbastards.org> wrote in
message news:NfydncBgCf36HduiXTWJhA@fcc.net...
David Sienkiewicz wrote:
Re: Sharon's Idea of Intelligent Discussion...
Your idea of intelligent discussion seems to be choosing a victim and then
using google to follow that person around, posting abusive remarks after
everything that person ever posts on any usenet group whatsoever, Dave.
How then could a loser like yourself possibly have anything to say about
what anybody else's idea of intelligent discussion might be?
Inquiring minds want to know, Dave.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
