* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said:

You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate
financial reward.

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Jeff wrote:
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said:

You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate
financial reward.

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the
question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring
minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote:
You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the other guy's argument.

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote:
You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So
I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the
other guy's argument.


Nope, it was a purely personal attack.

Cessna 310 wrote:

Nope, it was a purely personal attack.


whatever you say

I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:

Nope, it was a purely personal attack.


whatever you say

I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head

If that's what it takes to get rid of those pesky intra-cranial rocks,
go for it.

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:37 PM:
Jeff wrote:
What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the
question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring
minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?


Dave has never addressed the topic of global warming. In fact, he
generally does not address any issue, but prefers to stay on the
sideline and take cheap shots. That was the exact sentence used by
Dave in questioning someone else. I guess it didn't bother you when
he said it.