On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:56:55 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:42:00 -0500, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:57:05 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|
|
|My! Aren't we feeling sesquipedalian! Your entire response was
|illogical gibberish.
|(Argument By Prestigious Jargon and Argument By Bafflement)
|
|
|Golly gee willkers, you have me on the sesquipedalian indictment. I
|forgot my audience. I suppose I'll just have to counter with an
|indictment of resorting to the esoteric tu quoque.
|
|Regards

I think it is pretty clear that my position was not ad hominem.

Or a form thereof? Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.

Enjoy

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:22:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:34:24 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

refer to previous post for previously posted
3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.
Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you.

Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy
of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking
off from Crete. Maybe not.
Not. It was Leo Gorcey
Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two.
Spoken like an experienced politician.


We've gotten used to the mindless gutter badinage that's typically
tossed out by the righties here. Being accused of practicing solipsism,
well...that's at least a step higher on the ladder.


It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
philosophy. But not far removed from solipsism, though, is the
insulating quality of the internet. Persons can trash each other face
to face in the newsgroups without fear of the social consequence. It's
a behavior that most would find unconscionable, or at the least
regrettable, in public. The behavior here is akin to road rage, where
drivers are insulated from each other by the personal universe of
their vehicle.

I've had some good, liberal friends over the years with whom I've had
some rather passionate political discussions. I generally haven't
agreed with the basic tenets of their respective political
philosophies; but, I've recognized that, for the most part, they were
(and are) decent persons.


I didn't say I had adopted it; I stated it was a step up the ladder from
the mindless badinage of the righties.

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:32:06 -0400, Just John Again
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:06:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:22:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, wrote:

snipped for brevity.
We've gotten used to the mindless gutter badinage that's typically
tossed out by the righties here. Being accused of practicing solipsism,
well...that's at least a step higher on the ladder.

It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
philosophy. But not far removed from solipsism, though, is the
insulating quality of the internet. Persons can trash each other face
to face in the newsgroups without fear of the social consequence. It's
a behavior that most would find unconscionable, or at the least
regrettable, in public. The behavior here is akin to road rage, where
drivers are insulated from each other by the personal universe of
their vehicle.

I've had some good, liberal friends over the years with whom I've had
some rather passionate political discussions. I generally haven't
agreed with the basic tenets of their respective political
philosophies; but, I've recognized that, for the most part, they were
(and are) decent persons.
There are a few decent liberals right here in the group. You happen to
be responding to the exception. Once he starts calling you names and
you see the light for what it is, you may be able to stop biting at
his obvious trolls.

The poster is free to comport himself however he or she wants. My
personal imperative is to try to comport myself in accordance with my
respect for common courtesy.


Hear, hear.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:17:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:22:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:34:24 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

refer to previous post for previously posted
3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.
Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you.

Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy
of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking
off from Crete. Maybe not.
Not. It was Leo Gorcey
Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two.
Spoken like an experienced politician.


We've gotten used to the mindless gutter badinage that's typically
tossed out by the righties here. Being accused of practicing solipsism,
well...that's at least a step higher on the ladder.


It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
philosophy. But not far removed from solipsism, though, is the
insulating quality of the internet. Persons can trash each other face
to face in the newsgroups without fear of the social consequence. It's
a behavior that most would find unconscionable, or at the least
regrettable, in public. The behavior here is akin to road rage, where
drivers are insulated from each other by the personal universe of
their vehicle.

I've had some good, liberal friends over the years with whom I've had
some rather passionate political discussions. I generally haven't
agreed with the basic tenets of their respective political
philosophies; but, I've recognized that, for the most part, they were
(and are) decent persons.


I didn't say I had adopted it; I stated it was a step up the ladder from
the mindless badinage of the righties.

Understood. You'll have to forgive me if I was too subtle in
disassociating you from the strict definition of the solipsist in my
commentary. I'm really too busy to invest much time in these
discussions, and I try to compose these notes on the fly. I'm not
always careful enough in my hurry. To be honest and to be pragmatic,
I really shouldn't be investing any time (else I could be charged with
the hackneyed "you're a 40 year old living in your mother's basement"
ad hom - shades of the Idle Race's "I Like My Toys").

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.

That's not very subtle.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.

That's not very subtle.

If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.
That's not very subtle.

If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.



There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common
political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will
engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making
posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a
"knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the
mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in
interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bull****, idiocy, and
name-calling, I might again participate.

I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher
than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats.

Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.
That's not very subtle.

If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.



There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common
political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will
engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making
posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a
"knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the
mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in
interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bull****, idiocy, and
name-calling, I might again participate.

I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher
than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats.

Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining.


What seems to escape some critics is that a broad lexicon and strong
command of the language can allow a person to be somewhat discreet and
indirect while yet articulating thoughts lucidly. It's a shame that
more persons don't engage language with more dexterity and alacrity.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Jul 14, 4:34*pm, H the K wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.
That's not very subtle.

If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. *At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. *The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. *I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. *Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.

There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common
political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will
engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making
posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a
"knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the
mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in
interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bull****, idiocy, and
name-calling, I might again participate.

I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher
than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats.

Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's Harry, calling names and being an insulting boor while
chastising others for calling names and insulting. Rich isn't it?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, wrote:

Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.
That's not very subtle.

If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.



There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common
political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will
engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making
posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a
"knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the
mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in
interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bull****, idiocy, and
name-calling, I might again participate.

I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher
than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats.

Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining.


What seems to escape some critics is that a broad lexicon and strong
command of the language can allow a person to be somewhat discreet and
indirect while yet articulating thoughts lucidly. It's a shame that
more persons don't engage language with more dexterity and alacrity.

Yes, quite right.
Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive
thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced
with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good ****ing
story.

--Vic