On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:04:53 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I recall you and the other libs attacking something the Zel Miller said
when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Guess again.
I don't recall ever attacking Zel Miller. Or anything he said.


I recall it. You have.

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

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:04:53 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I recall you and the other libs attacking something the Zel Miller
said
when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Guess again.
I don't recall ever attacking Zel Miller. Or anything he said.


I recall it. You have.

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. ;-)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:47:07 -0400, "jim--" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:04:53 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I recall you and the other libs attacking something the Zel Miller
said
when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Guess again.
I don't recall ever attacking Zel Miller. Or anything he said.


I recall it. You have.

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

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:47:07 -0400, "jim--" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:04:53 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I recall you and the other libs attacking something the Zel Miller
said
when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Guess again.
I don't recall ever attacking Zel Miller. Or anything he said.


I recall it. You have.

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.

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

"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.

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?

jim-- wrote:



Why should I? I spoke the truth.

Not in your current lifetime.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002