Perhaps you believe that my pointing out your errors is the same as
insulting you? You simply have repeated this "ad-hominem" stuff so often
that you believe it yourself. Now let's see the proof: quote at least
three of my insults to you in the past month. Last time I challenged you
to do so, you were rather quiet for a few days.


Maxprop wrote:
12/14 8:35pm to Maxprop: " . . . don't you neo-cons usually dismiss this
kind of stuff with a laugh?"


Is that an insult? You are a neo-conservative, and as a
political group they are always crying about junk science
this and unproven that, and trying to cut off gov't funding
for research they disapprove of.


12/19 8:18pm to Dave: "Where you were ridiculed constantly for being so
gullible and dumb?"


That *after* he'd already insulted me several times and
topped it off by jumping in with your claim that I often
insult him.



12?20 6:48pm to Maxprop: "You're just PO'd because you always feel like a
dumb jerk . .and rightly so . . .when trying to argue with me."


Ditto above.

Shall I continue?


If you feel justified in doing so... all you've shown is
that I insulted you once after you started this thread, in
which you've presented no facts but attacked me several
times. In other words, a statement of fact- you must really
feel like a dumb jerk or you wouldn't be whining like this.

Next?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Perhaps you believe that my pointing out your errors is the same as
insulting you? You simply have repeated this "ad-hominem" stuff so often
that you believe it yourself. Now let's see the proof: quote at least
three of my insults to you in the past month. Last time I challenged you
to do so, you were rather quiet for a few days.


Maxprop wrote:
12/14 8:35pm to Maxprop: " . . . don't you neo-cons usually dismiss
this kind of stuff with a laugh?"


Is that an insult? You are a neo-conservative, and as a political group
they are always crying about junk science this and unproven that, and
trying to cut off gov't funding for research they disapprove of.

Of course it's an insult. The implication was derogatory, despite your
attempt to whitewash it.

12/19 8:18pm to Dave: "Where you were ridiculed constantly for being so
gullible and dumb?"


That *after* he'd already insulted me several times and topped it off by
jumping in with your claim that I often insult him.

At least you now acknowledge that you did insult him. That's a start,
despite your claim that "he hit me first, Mommy."

12?20 6:48pm to Maxprop: "You're just PO'd because you always feel like
a dumb jerk . .and rightly so . . .when trying to argue with me."


Ditto above.

Shall I continue?


If you feel justified in doing so...

The request for verification was yours. If proving you wrong is
justification of something, so be it.

all you've shown is that I insulted you once after you started this
thread,

We seem to be making progress.

in which you've presented no facts but attacked me several times.

I debated your argument only. You, however, do seem to get your undies in a
twist when someone doubts the purportedly 'factual' nature of your opinions.
This is Usenet (read: entertainment), Doug, not a Senate hearing. No one
wishes to verify your research, and no one expects you to verify theirs.
What is presented here is *opinion,* almost never verifiable fact. So voice
your opinions and stop being so indignant when someone disagrees with them.

In other words, a statement of fact- you must really feel like a dumb jerk
or you wouldn't be whining like this.

Proving you to be inconsistent and/or in denial w/r/t attacks on other
posters is hardly "whining." But you must certainly be awash in self-doubt
to attack your debaters so vigorously.

But I really don't care, Doug. If you want to debate issues and keep your
emotions under your hat, that's fine with me. If not, that's fine, too.
Your call.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
... If you want to debate issues and keep your
emotions under your hat, that's fine with me. If not, that's fine, too.
Your call.

I *was* debating the issues until you started whining about
how I always throw insults.

Do you regard this as a clever tactic to distract everyone
from your lack of facts & logic relevant to the issue under
debate?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
... If you want to debate issues and keep your
emotions under your hat, that's fine with me. If not, that's fine, too.
Your call.

I *was* debating the issues until you started whining about how I always
throw insults.

Do you regard this as a clever tactic to distract everyone from your lack
of facts & logic relevant to the issue under debate?

Nope. I don't regard this as a tactic at all, clever or otherwise. Rather
it's an attempt to get another Usenet contributor to examine his own
behavior and perhaps modify it in such a manner as to generate less
antipathy on the part of others. If you were stupid and obtuse I wouldn't
bother. But it would be a shame to ignore you in a debate simply because
you can't control your temper and restrain yourself from throwing ad
hominems every which way.

Dave sees it as well. Of course you can adopt the belief that the rest of
the platoon is out of step and only you are marching correctly if it suits
you.

Max

You boys need a time out.

3 days till Christmas. Santa's checking his list....twice!

Scotty



"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Perhaps you believe that my pointing out your errors is the
same as

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
You boys need a time out.

3 days till Christmas. Santa's checking his list....twice!

I have a Notre Dame hockey t-shirt with a drawing of a goalie, in full gear,
on the back. Beneath is the adage: "Every year Santa checks for naughty
and nice. This year check him back."

Max