"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?

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

Apparently not well enough.

It turns out I was wrong. Somebody suggested a slightly different Google
technique, and I did find one post, from 2002 in which I referred to Zell
Miller in an extremely neutral manner.

(There were about 5 posts that used the word "miller", but most of them have to
do with a local boat yard, not a politician.)

Actually, I merely copied and quoted the words "Zell MIller" from a post by a
conservative who was playing some juvenile "gotcha" game by posting a Zell
Miller quote, and then asking everybody to guess which Democrat had made the
statement.

My "attacking comment" was an evaluation of the statement, not Mr. Miller
I posted, "It sounds more like something a conservative Republican might say".
That's certainly not a case of ganging up with the moderates on this board to
attack Zell Miller. One could make case that Zell Miller has been invited to
speak at the Republican convention precisely *because* he sounds like a
conservative Republican.

If you'd be willing to stipulate that sounding like a conservative Republican
is such a horrible thing that accusing somebody of doing that is an "attack,
and an insult"....
I'd be intersted to see you take this discussion in that direction.

Sorry, but you're wrong again, Jim. I have never attacked Zell Miller in the
NG, and searching the Google archives where you claim the evidence resides
yields *nothing* similar to your description. It's time for you to fess up to
your error, put up your proof, or shut up and slink away from this issue.

Jim,

I do not understand your problem with Gould 0738, while he seems to be very
liberal, he is one of the few people in here who contributes to off topic
posts who does not sound like a 4th graders in the playground calling each
other names.

Since it seems off topic posts will continue to be a mainstay in rec.boats,
it would be nice if they were intelligent and not the same tripe that is
repeated by the majority of off topic posters. I mean how many times can
you say "you are stupid", "no I am not, you are", "I am witting and smart,
but you are a buttwipe".






"jim--" wrote in message
...

"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?

"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:U7rRc.249766$JR4.209866@attbi_s54...
Jim,

I do not understand your problem with Gould 0738, while he seems to be
very
liberal, he is one of the few people in here who contributes to off topic
posts who does not sound like a 4th graders in the playground calling
each
other names.

Since it seems off topic posts will continue to be a mainstay in
rec.boats,
it would be nice if they were intelligent and not the same tripe that is
repeated by the majority of off topic posters. I mean how many times can
you say "you are stupid", "no I am not, you are", "I am witting and smart,
but you are a buttwipe".




I like Chuck. Yes, he is very liberal and he has every right to hold that
political stance. But I will take him to task on his posts that I disagree
with.

My posts do not generally degrade into the childish insults you mention.
Krause, jps and Basskisser are the ones you should direct your comments to
as they are the main offenders.

I was not suggesting you were making those posts, I was saying that Gould
definitely did not. While the people you mentioned are some of the main
contributors to the childish posts, there are others on the conservative
side who are just as bad.

While many people wish the OT discussions would move to an appropriate
group, it will probably not happen. Since it seems that rec.boats has
become rec.boats.political.squabble it would be nice if others followed
Gould's lead in his method of debate. My guess is those who use cut and
paste articles and call each other "stupid" or "buttwipe" do not have
Gould's ability to discuss the issues. I have noticed that those who like
to brag about their intellectually capabilities seem to do the best to hide
their intellect when making posts in rec.boats. I have no idea of Gould's
actual intelligence, but I have noticed he never mentions it. He allows his
posts to represent his personality and intellectual ability.


"jim--" wrote in message
...

"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:U7rRc.249766$JR4.209866@attbi_s54...
Jim,

I do not understand your problem with Gould 0738, while he seems to be
very
liberal, he is one of the few people in here who contributes to off
topic
posts who does not sound like a 4th graders in the playground calling
each
other names.

Since it seems off topic posts will continue to be a mainstay in
rec.boats,
it would be nice if they were intelligent and not the same tripe that is
repeated by the majority of off topic posters. I mean how many times
can
you say "you are stupid", "no I am not, you are", "I am witting and
smart,
but you are a buttwipe".




I like Chuck. Yes, he is very liberal and he has every right to hold that
political stance. But I will take him to task on his posts that I
disagree
with.

My posts do not generally degrade into the childish insults you mention.
Krause, jps and Basskisser are the ones you should direct your comments to
as they are the main offenders.

"jim--" wrote in message ...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:U7rRc.249766$JR4.209866@attbi_s54...
Jim,

I do not understand your problem with Gould 0738, while he seems to be
very
liberal, he is one of the few people in here who contributes to off topic
posts who does not sound like a 4th graders in the playground calling
each
other names.

Since it seems off topic posts will continue to be a mainstay in
rec.boats,
it would be nice if they were intelligent and not the same tripe that is
repeated by the majority of off topic posters. I mean how many times can
you say "you are stupid", "no I am not, you are", "I am witting and smart,
but you are a buttwipe".




I like Chuck. Yes, he is very liberal and he has every right to hold that
political stance. But I will take him to task on his posts that I disagree
with.

My posts do not generally degrade into the childish insults you mention.
Krause, jps and Basskisser are the ones you should direct your comments to
as they are the main offenders.

What?? Are you really saying that YOUR posts aren't hate filled, and
childish insult ridden? Care for me to google you up some of YOUR
gems?