"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.

(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Maxprop wrote:
Are you so blind to your own behavior that you believe yourself to be any
different, albeit at the opposite end of the political spectrum?


1- I am not at the "opposite end of the political spectrum" except
possibly with regard to principle

Clearly a matter of opinion. I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves: you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president, and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites. You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality. You call them all "neocons," as if this is an abberation
of your brand of "conservatism." None of the conservatives I know
personally have any of these viewpoints.

2- My behavior is very considerably different. You and Dave are the only
ones who think I insult others for disagreeing, and then only some of the
time. Everybody knows that you do it all the time.

No one in the NG is lilly white w/r/t ad hominems, but both Dave and I tend
to discuss principles without attacking you. You, OTOH, seldom debate an
issue without attacking me personally, and I suspect you attack Dave as
well, although I really don't read enough of your and his posts to know for
sure. It's a suspicion based upon your behavior with me.

So it isn't really a question of "belief" now is it?

Right. It's more a question of denial: yours.

Max

Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes with
Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally. As I recall,
you plonked me because you disagreed with my political viewpoint. Yet, you
don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.

(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Maxprop wrote:
Are you so blind to your own behavior that you believe yourself to be
any different, albeit at the opposite end of the political spectrum?


1- I am not at the "opposite end of the political spectrum" except
possibly with regard to principle

Clearly a matter of opinion. I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves: you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president, and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites. You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality. You call them all "neocons," as if this is an
abberation of your brand of "conservatism." None of the conservatives I
know personally have any of these viewpoints.

2- My behavior is very considerably different. You and Dave are the only
ones who think I insult others for disagreeing, and then only some of the
time. Everybody knows that you do it all the time.

No one in the NG is lilly white w/r/t ad hominems, but both Dave and I
tend to discuss principles without attacking you. You, OTOH, seldom
debate an issue without attacking me personally, and I suspect you attack
Dave as well, although I really don't read enough of your and his posts to
know for sure. It's a suspicion based upon your behavior with me.

So it isn't really a question of "belief" now is it?

Right. It's more a question of denial: yours.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.


Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I only ask that you watch his posts to me. Seldom does he make a point
without a personal jibe at the very least.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

Highly doubtful, just the same as with something on a far right website.
Neither side give much credence to fact, only to hyperbole and dogma.

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes
with Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

Every administration is filled with corrupt individuals to some degree.
This one, however, has certainly distinguished itself as the penultimate, if
not the ultimate, in corruption.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

Only in the minds of those making the distinction. Left wingers think every
conservative today is a neocon. Most conservatives believe themselves to be
correctly described by the classic definition. I'm a fiscal conservative
and a social moderate, but Doug has spared no opportunity to brand me a
right wing wacko and/or a neocon.


I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally.

Pay better attention to his responses to my posts.

As I recall, you plonked me because you disagreed with my political
viewpoint. Yet, you don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

I didn't killfile you because I disagreed with your politics--I did so
because you became so vehemently personal in your attacks. I'm gratified to
see how radically you've changed in that regard. I suspect you're a decent
sort, but your earlier (election period) posts were pretty rabid. I never
****can anyone because I disagree with them. I've done so if their attacks
become mostly personal (eg--Neal), or if they crosspost to the flonkers
(well over 100 so far).

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.


Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I only ask that you watch his posts to me. Seldom does he make a point
without a personal jibe at the very least.

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

Highly doubtful, just the same as with something on a far right website.
Neither side give much credence to fact, only to hyperbole and dogma.

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct. Of
course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what you
want.

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes
with Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

Every administration is filled with corrupt individuals to some degree.
This one, however, has certainly distinguished itself as the penultimate,
if not the ultimate, in corruption.

No argument here.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

Only in the minds of those making the distinction. Left wingers think
every conservative today is a neocon. Most conservatives believe
themselves to be correctly described by the classic definition. I'm a
fiscal conservative and a social moderate, but Doug has spared no
opportunity to brand me a right wing wacko and/or a neocon.

The neocons have been self-labeled. Erum... this is my favorite definition:

Conservative - A contaminant that moves with the same velocity as water.


I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally.

Pay better attention to his responses to my posts.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I don't
recall anything like this.

As I recall, you plonked me because you disagreed with my political
viewpoint. Yet, you don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

I didn't killfile you because I disagreed with your politics--I did so
because you became so vehemently personal in your attacks. I'm gratified
to see how radically you've changed in that regard. I suspect you're a
decent sort, but your earlier (election period) posts were pretty rabid.
I never ****can anyone because I disagree with them. I've done so if
their attacks become mostly personal (eg--Neal), or if they crosspost to
the flonkers (well over 100 so far).

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.

Then I rescind my apology. :-)

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

I know this sounds disingenuous, but that's a horse of a different color.
We all expect BB and some others to be in a league by themselves, but we
seldom discuss issues with those folks either. Doug discusses issues, and
cogently, but he can't refrain from ad hominems, for some reason. It
denigrates his argument. "If you can't debate the issue, attack the
debater."

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct.
Of course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what
you want.

Not exclusively. I also decide what constitutes far right as well, at least
IMO.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I don't
recall anything like this.

See below. A fairly typical example, actually.

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

That never bothered me in the least.

Why didn't you respond to my final question, about Doug's most recent attack
in this thread?

Max

No problem with the apology. I forgive you. :-)

I didn't see the personal attack from him. Would you like to repeat it...
then, I'll pass judgement upon him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.

Then I rescind my apology. :-)

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

I know this sounds disingenuous, but that's a horse of a different color.
We all expect BB and some others to be in a league by themselves, but we
seldom discuss issues with those folks either. Doug discusses issues, and
cogently, but he can't refrain from ad hominems, for some reason. It
denigrates his argument. "If you can't debate the issue, attack the
debater."

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct.
Of course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what
you want.

Not exclusively. I also decide what constitutes far right as well, at
least IMO.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I
don't recall anything like this.

See below. A fairly typical example, actually.

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

That never bothered me in the least.

Why didn't you respond to my final question, about Doug's most recent
attack in this thread?

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No problem with the apology. I forgive you. :-)

I didn't see the personal attack from him. Would you like to repeat it...
then, I'll pass judgement upon him.

Below is the last part of that post.

Max
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++

"Capt. JG" wrote:

Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I don't know what group Ganz has been reading, but I see Doug insult Dave
and Maxprop in almost every post as of late.

LP

You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.


(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Well, let's see:

About this time last year you were frantically calling
everybody names whom you thought might not vote for
Bush/Cheney. At the time, I pointed out that when
considering the facts, they had not done a very good job
running the country. For that, you called me even more names.

Now you agree with me.

Clearly you are very consistent in your principles.





Maxprop wrote:
.... I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves:

Yep- I am in favor of a strong military, a fiscally
responsible gov't, enforcement of the Constitution, and own
several guns. Hmm, I don't see any bumper stickers for a
liberal like me!


.... you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president

1- Who is "the most liberal"? Kucinick? I didn't support him.

2- So did 49.9% of the rest of the country. Do the math

.... and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites.

Like what?

... You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality.

Like what?

... You call them all "neocons,"

No, I call neo-cons neo-cons. Usually that's what they call
themselves.

... as if this is an abberation
of your brand of "conservatism."

No, it's an aberration of conservatism. Neo-cons themselves
say so.


... None of the conservatives I know
personally have any of these viewpoints.



So far you haven't mentioned a single one of my viewpoints,
nor have you addressed any actual facts. So far, it looks
like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you
shouldn't be so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit
like him.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.


(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Well, let's see:

About this time last year you were frantically calling everybody names
whom you thought might not vote for Bush/Cheney.

False.

At the time, I pointed out that when considering the facts, they had not
done a very good job running the country. For that, you called me even
more names.

Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without resorting to
ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Now you agree with me.

Clearly you are very consistent in your principles.





Maxprop wrote:
.... I tend to believe you are among the most liberal of posters
herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of course, are in
constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for themselves:

Yep- I am in favor of a strong military,

So is Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and other liberals.
At least they claim to be.

a fiscally responsible gov't,

I don't recall any of the liberals in Congress calling for a fiscally
irresponsible government. Only our current administration seems to be
smitten with that idea.

enforcement of the Constitution, and own several guns.

Many liberals are closet gun owners. Recall Carl Rowan, who shot a kid for
swimming in his pool? He was clearly one of the more liberal columnists in
the media of his day. I recall being frustrated with the frequent harrangue
against gun ownership that he preached in his columns.

Hmm, I don't see any bumper stickers for a liberal like me!

I've got one for ya: "Hillary in '08"

.... you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to run
for president

1- Who is "the most liberal"? Kucinick? I didn't support him.

Kerry. He was probably quite a bit right of Kucinich or Dean, but he
certainly is no moderate. Even Gore looks like a moderate next to him.

2- So did 49.9% of the rest of the country. Do the math

.... and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I see on the
far left websites.

Like what?

Without digging up specifics, I do recall some points you made in
discussions with Dave or me in which the same lines, nearly verbatim, were
on moveon.org or one of the other highly liberal sites earlier in the
week. I read those websites regularly, so when a particular tag line, not
just a concept, shows up here, it seems obvious from where it came.


... You've branded any of the current conservative players in the
political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and without morality.

Like what?

Karl Rove, who was absolved of wrongdoing in the Valerie Plame exposure case
yesterday. Of course Rove has pulled out the stops in order to put his man
in the White House, but so has George Soros, and I've not heard one word
against him from you. Both have really dirty fingers, but you've chosen to
lambaste Rove only.

... You call them all "neocons,"

No, I call neo-cons neo-cons. Usually that's what they call themselves.

I certainly don't reall anyone of importance referring to himself as a
neocon. IIRC it's a media term that has been adopted by the left as a
derogatory appellation.

... as if this is an abberation of your brand of "conservatism."

No, it's an aberration of conservatism. Neo-cons themselves say so.

See above.

... None of the conservatives I know personally have any of these
viewpoints.



So far you haven't mentioned a single one of my viewpoints, nor have you
addressed any actual facts.

Actions speak louder than words. I'm personally not aware of any
conservatives who supported Gore or Kerry in the past presidential
elections. You are obviously a democrat, and right or wrong the democrat
party is now closely associated with liberalism. The power base of the
democrat party is strongly liberal. I'll grant that you hold some
apparently conservative viewpoints, but when one hangs with dogs one tends
to have fleas. It's difficult to be a conservative (Blue Dog) democrat
these days.

So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

Max