Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

Sat Apr 6 00:25:53 UTC 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Johnson" <russj at dimstar.net>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

> At 02:56 PM 4/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > > I love websites that speak in half truths, doublespeak and broken
links.
> > >
> >
> >
> >And your point?  Is there anyone who is 100% correct 100% of the time?
>
> No, and in fact, I made that point several messages ago. We're all human.
> Humans make mistakes.
>
> >If you answer no,  then you must be admitting that your sources may not
> >always be 100% correct either.
>
> No, and that's why I always use at least two (most times, many more)
> references that corroborate each other before I take something at face
> value. Even when one source says something that gives you that "duh"
> feeling, without any cooperation, I don't believe it.
>
> This doesn't even count the things that I dismiss out of hand because the
> logic fails miserably.
>
> >Now,  thankfully we have laws of nature that govern over irrational
emtional
> >people,  whether or not they accept it or even know it.
>
> You know, I tend to hold credence to sources that communicate well.
> Communicating well includes spelling well.
>
Your point here,  is apparently that since I made a TYPO with "emotional" I
am a bad communicator?

Hell,  man if I'd a known that I woulda' run thate there spellun checker
thingy!

I was runner up in my school spelling bee in the sixth grade,  funny aint
it?  But I will never win a typing contest,  and especially when I have the
windows open and it's cold out,  my fingers get rather klutzy and I don't
always catch the errors.  It's hard to see the screen in here in the daytime
as well,  I admit I could do better. ( Huh? Glasses?  I'll never need
glasses!)

> >UAL stock and Buzzy Kroengaard cannot be denied,   can it?
>
> I don't know. I didn't do the research. It sure sounds damning, but then,
> lots of things are damning when the coincidence is strong enough. "K" is
> the 11th letter of the alphabet and all that.

Now, this is a prime example of why I percieve a lot of arguments to be
fruitless exercise; pointless time wasting effort-  there are many who will
find a way, ANY way,  to rationalize their OPINION
Education is wasted on these people,  and they are the MAJORITY-
NOT saying you are one of them,  but that is how they usually evade being
pinned down...
"your website is full of crap,  see! I found one that is claiming there is a
lot of "conspiracy websites" on the net printing lies about the flag!"

( By the way,  whoever it was who came up with that one,  it was laughable..
and you ought to know that any site that is out there trying to debunk the
"whacko patriots" is most likely government funded,  kind of like Sarah
Brady being a webmaster or something;  there is an agenda all right...  but
it made me laugh to see someone point their finger to just another website
and say it somehow proves ANYTHING at all,  and it is basically a double
standard to say  I have to come over to your house and show you the
notarized documents to be taken seriously,  but you can go to some "militia
watch" ADL sponsored website and say it proves YOUR opinion.... which is why
I didn't even reply,  you show yourself to be prejudiced and biased,  and
therefore "of no creedance" whatever,  a waste of my time )

>
> >I agree with Jeme that the preponderence of evidence is quite well
> >established,  and I don't rely upon one website or the other - I use
> >critcial thinking skills,  unencumbered by a fear of the govt or a fear
of
> >what my neighbor thinks for that matter.
>
> Well, I have news for you. I rely on my own powers of deductive reasoning
> too. What my reasoning says is that everyone who's forwarded one theory or
> another usually has their own agenda.

And is there some inherent distrust worthy of anyone who's only agenda is
Truth?  Justice?  Rule of Law?
Is it "agendas" that are suspect or suspect agendas?

> Just as I have no idea if O.J. was
> guilty or not (I wasn't there and I didn't see him do it) I have no first
> hand evidence of anything you've said.
>
> >I don't look over my shoulder and see which way the bleating herd is
headed
> >before I can decide what my opinion "ought" to be.
>
> And I did? I woke up that day, turned on the TV, saw a plane slam into the
> second tower and went "OH MY GOD."
>

I am not saying that you are a sheep;  I am explaining why I am the way I
am.

> I don't care WHO did it. Those people need to be taken OUT. No one in
> either of those towers was or should be a valid target in any war.
>

I agree.  Now, if those who did it are in office,  what will you say?  Will
you still say that when it is dangerous to your health or freedom?

> >Usually,  that kind of honesty is met with a lot of frenzied bleating
from
> >the herd.
>
> So now you resort to calling me a sheep? Can you debate without the name
> calling?

We all know that there is a herd mentality with the human race.  Whether or
not you want to take ownership of that trait is up to you;  I was speaking
rhetorically again.  After many years of seeing how your basic morally and
intellectually dishonest cowards deal with unpleasant realities,  I have no
problem calling it what it is.  To tell you the truth I do not follow too
closely who thinks what in these threads,  and try to follow anyone's
profile or pattern,  I take the messages pretty much each on their own
merit.  I don't really remember without going back and researching who says
what and when,  and I don't plan on trying.
You may have agreed with me more than not and I wouldn't have a clue;  I am
not keeping score.

Please don't be offended,  I meant none.

>
> Russ Johnson
> http://www.dimstar.net
>
>
> Don't judge a book by its movie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk