On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:06:42 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

[snip]

Shouldn't be any problem for you to post a link to it, then, right?


Correct. I had no problem finding it using Google. But as your buddy
Krause always says....find it yourself if you need a link. ;-)

What in the world gives you the idea that the bilious Mr. Krause is a
friend of
mine?

In any case, since you made the original assertion, the burden is on *you*
to
substantiate it. I am frankly curious to see how you will do that. Just
one
little link would do nicely.

Joe Parsons


Find it yourself.

Wouldn't it be easier for you simply to admit you were...mistaken in your
original statement?

To be completely candid, I was looking forward to see just what you might
consider to be an "attack."

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:01:24 -0400, in rec.boats you wrote:

I recall you [referring to Gould] and the other libs attacking something the Zel Miller said when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Joe Parsons

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:53:43 -0700, jps wrote:

In article , says...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Then you would be wrong.

That's easy to measure.

Which of the crew members who served on Kery's boat, other than the
guy
who's
dead, does not support him?


More than half of them.

Huh?

I'm pretty sure it's 11 of the 12 he served with (on two boats).

NONE of the swiftboatvetsfortruth of whatever the hell they're called
served with Kerry.

jps

Hey...*I* was on active duty in the Navy in 1967-1969.

*I* must have served with Kerry, too!

Joe Parsons

So, the difference is that you're not politically motivated to
participate in a character assassination pig pile?

I find it interesting that 250 guys who didn't know Kerry are willing to
step up to heap bad juju on him while NO ONE will show up to vouch for
Bush not being AWOL.

Irony? I think so!

jps

I will bet they knew Kerry. Swiftboats would have been a tight group. Sort
of like a squadron in the air force. You knew most of the people in the
unit, even if you did not work directly with them. You missed out on the
military experience.

In article , says...

Sort of like Zel Miller being ashamed of the tactics of the Democratic
party?

Zell Miller hasn't been a Democrat in years. He uses his political
position and a fulcrum and pulpit. Few Democrats pay attention while
the Republicans all hail.

Zell and Calf Bill are twins.

jps

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:06:42 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

[snip]

Shouldn't be any problem for you to post a link to it, then, right?


Correct. I had no problem finding it using Google. But as your
buddy
Krause always says....find it yourself if you need a link. ;-)

What in the world gives you the idea that the bilious Mr. Krause is a
friend of
mine?

In any case, since you made the original assertion, the burden is on
*you*
to
substantiate it. I am frankly curious to see how you will do that.
Just
one
little link would do nicely.

Joe Parsons


Find it yourself.

Wouldn't it be easier for you simply to admit you were...mistaken in your
original statement?

Why should I? I spoke the truth.



To be completely candid, I was looking forward to see just what you might
consider to be an "attack."

Then do a google search and go find out.



On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:01:24 -0400, in rec.boats you wrote:

I recall you [referring to Gould] and the other libs attacking something
the Zel Miller said when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Yep, and he is.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:48:17 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

[snip]

substantiate it. I am frankly curious to see how you will do that.
Just
one
little link would do nicely.

Joe Parsons


Find it yourself.

Wouldn't it be easier for you simply to admit you were...mistaken in your
original statement?

Why should I? I spoke the truth.

This is what is called "argument by assertion." It's just one small step
removed from "circular reasoning." In the simplest terms, the mere fact that
you repeat your assertion over and over does not make your statement true. It
certainly does not make for a cogent argument.

To be completely candid, I was looking forward to see just what you might
consider to be an "attack."

Then do a google search and go find out.

I'd rather see you substantiate your own claim. You see, by refusing to do
something as trivially easy as providing a link to a post from Gould to prove
your statement, you create the impression that you were either intentionally
misrepresenting (the technical term for this is "lying") or that you were
mistaken.

If the latter, it is easy to correct the misstatement. An admission of error is
viewed by many to be a sign of good character.

If it's the former, well, that's a sign of character, as well.

Joe Parsons

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:01:24 -0400, in rec.boats you wrote:

I recall you [referring to Gould] and the other libs attacking something
the Zel Miller said when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Yep, and he is.

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:48:17 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

[snip]

substantiate it. I am frankly curious to see how you will do that.
Just
one
little link would do nicely.

Joe Parsons


Find it yourself.

Wouldn't it be easier for you simply to admit you were...mistaken in
your
original statement?

Why should I? I spoke the truth.

This is what is called "argument by assertion." It's just one small step
removed from "circular reasoning." In the simplest terms, the mere fact
that
you repeat your assertion over and over does not make your statement true.
It
certainly does not make for a cogent argument.

To be completely candid, I was looking forward to see just what you
might
consider to be an "attack."

Then do a google search and go find out.

I'd rather see you substantiate your own claim. You see, by refusing to
do
something as trivially easy as providing a link to a post from Gould to
prove
your statement, you create the impression that you were either
intentionally
misrepresenting (the technical term for this is "lying") or that you were
mistaken.

If the latter, it is easy to correct the misstatement. An admission of
error is
viewed by many to be a sign of good character.

If it's the former, well, that's a sign of character, as well.

Joe Parsons

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:01:24 -0400, in rec.boats you wrote:

I recall you [referring to Gould] and the other libs attacking
something
the Zel Miller said when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Yep, and he is.



Joe, if it bothers you so much, as it apparently does, then get off your
ass and look it up. It is there for you to find oh grasshopper.

From Google:

Your search - miller group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.

From Google:

Your search - zell group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.


*******************

Very interesting. Wouldn't you think that if I had attacked Zell Miller in the
NG, I would have had to use either the words "Zell" or "Miller" ?

Hypothetical question of the day: Would it be worse to
be discovered to be incorrect, or to appear to be telling a deliberate
falsehood in order to cover up an honest mistake? Do they shoot right wingers
for being wrong, or something?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
From Google:

Your search - miller group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.

From Google:

Your search - zell group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.


*******************

Very interesting. Wouldn't you think that if I had attacked Zell Miller in
the
NG, I would have had to use either the words "Zell" or "Miller" ?

Hypothetical question of the day: Would it be worse to
be discovered to be incorrect, or to appear to be telling a deliberate
falsehood in order to cover up an honest mistake? Do they shoot right
wingers
for being wrong, or something?



I just googled and got 76 hits. Don't you know how to google Chuck?

On 06 Aug 2004 18:10:57 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

From Google:

Your search - miller group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.

From Google:

Your search - zell group:rec.boats author:gould0738 - did not match any
documents.


*******************

Very interesting. Wouldn't you think that if I had attacked Zell Miller in the
NG, I would have had to use either the words "Zell" or "Miller" ?

There's a part of me that wants to see just how far Dennis (or whatever his name
is) will go to maintain his (now obviously absurd) premise.

But there's the other, more rational part that tells me that he's already shown
to whoever may still be reading that he's talking through his...hat.

Joe Parsons


Hypothetical question of the day: Would it be worse to
be discovered to be incorrect, or to appear to be telling a deliberate
falsehood in order to cover up an honest mistake? Do they shoot right wingers
for being wrong, or something?

Gould 0738 wrote:
.... Do they shoot right wingers
for being wrong, or something?

Why would they do that? To encourage the others?

DSK