On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:44:09 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:30:27 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:40:31 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

Chuck, would you call this name-calling?

************
As I said, that type of behavior is "down significantly".

Do you disagree?

Chuck, would you call this name-calling?

"As for my influence, of course you reject intelligent & factual input,
that's why you're a member of the Krause-obessed fascist whacko clique."

That's from Doug Kanter, one of the folks you mentioned in the post you snipped.

Or,

"Actually, she always HAS been. But, since she doesn't fit the Cosmo model
image, she doesn't garner favor with children like JimH."


from the same.

This was from one on your 'good guy' list. Is the question unanswerable?

The answer to yours is yes. But, the slope of the line tangent to the
name-calling per day frequency curve is definitely positive.


You have to understand the double standard. When the "right"
criticizes someone, it's "hate filled rhetoric", but when the "left"
criticizes someone, it's "an expression of their first amendment
right to an alternative viewpoint."


Dave

Ah. I stand informed. Thanks.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

No, you're misinformed.

When the left or the right says:

So and so is a this, a that, and some other negative sort of person (or
group), that is hate filled rhetoric.


When the left or the right says:

So and so holds an incorrect perspective on this issue because........,
that is a first amendment right to an alternative viewpoint.


Lumping an entire class or group into a statement made to cast that
class or group in a negative light nearly always precedes hate-filled
rhetoric.

On 9 Mar 2005 09:08:17 -0800, wrote:

No, you're misinformed.

When the left or the right says:

So and so is a this, a that, and some other negative sort of person (or
group), that is hate filled rhetoric.


When the left or the right says:

So and so holds an incorrect perspective on this issue because........,
that is a first amendment right to an alternative viewpoint.


Lumping an entire class or group into a statement made to cast that
class or group in a negative light nearly always precedes hate-filled
rhetoric.

Chuck, would you call this name-calling?

"As for my influence, of course you reject intelligent & factual input,
that's why you're a member of the Krause-obessed fascist whacko clique."

That's from Doug Kanter, one of the folks you mentioned in the post you snipped.

Or,

"Actually, she always HAS been. But, since she doesn't fit the Cosmo model
image, she doesn't garner favor with children like JimH."


from the same.

This was from one on your 'good guy' list. Is the question unanswerable?

The answer to yours is yes. But, the slope of the line tangent to the
name-calling per day frequency curve is definitely positive.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

P.Fritz wrote:

See? I knew Fritz wouldn't be able to stop the childish name
calling.
Kudos to the rest of you, though. Hell, even JimH and I have had a
meaningful conversation. I DO hope Fritz sees the light, and starts
posting meaningful diatribes, but it doesn't look good so far.



How could he, he's never recognized he has his head up his ass.

Fritz, thanks for making my case!!!! Good job!

On 9 Mar 2005 09:08:17 -0800, wrote:

No, you're misinformed.

When the left or the right says:

So and so is a this, a that, and some other negative sort of person (or
group), that is hate filled rhetoric.


When the left or the right says:

So and so holds an incorrect perspective on this issue because........,
that is a first amendment right to an alternative viewpoint.


Lumping an entire class or group into a statement made to cast that
class or group in a negative light nearly always precedes hate-filled
rhetoric.


Hmmm....

One can project a negative opinion of a person or policy without it
automatically stooping to the level of "hate filled rhetoric". But it
seems that those on the left are particularly sensitive to this and
seem to blur that line between criticism and hate.

Dave

Dave Hall, responded as though on cue:

One can project a negative opinion of a person or policy without it
automatically stooping to the level of "hate filled rhetoric". But it
seems that those on the left are particularly sensitive to this and
seem to blur that line between criticism and hate.


Dave


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

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Until you demonsrated the behavior of criticising based upon stereotype
so exactly, some might have dismissed my observations as merely Gould's
personal opinion.

On 9 Mar 2005 16:13:36 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hall, responded as though on cue:

One can project a negative opinion of a person or policy without it
automatically stooping to the level of "hate filled rhetoric". But it
seems that those on the left are particularly sensitive to this and
seem to blur that line between criticism and hate.


Dave


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

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Until you demonsrated the behavior of criticising based upon stereotype
so exactly, some might have dismissed my observations as merely Gould's
personal opinion.

Stereotypes are born when the particular group that has become
"stereotyped", exhibits the "stereotypical" traits that eventually
become attributed to them.

Behind every stereotype, there is a solid grain of truth. What one has
to remember though is that stereotypes, like most other things, are
not absolute, there are always exceptions. But because you can name a
few exceptions to the "stereotype", that does not invalidate it for
the majority that it does apply to.

That being said, I see it far more often from members of the left,
that they are quick to denounce criticism of their ideology as "hate
speech" (Such as conservative talk radio). Conversely, while the more
outspoken members of their "group" are caught using language that
equals or exceeds that of those they criticize, and are called to the
carpet for it, they cry "foul" and insist that they are only
expressing their "right" to disagree.

The double standard is there whether you want to admit it or not.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2005 16:13:36 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hall, responded as though on cue:

One can project a negative opinion of a person or policy without it
automatically stooping to the level of "hate filled rhetoric". But it
seems that those on the left are particularly sensitive to this and
seem to blur that line between criticism and hate.


Dave


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

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Until you demonsrated the behavior of criticising based upon stereotype
so exactly, some might have dismissed my observations as merely Gould's
personal opinion.

Stereotypes are born when the particular group that has become
"stereotyped", exhibits the "stereotypical" traits that eventually
become attributed to them.

Behind every stereotype, there is a solid grain of truth. What one has
to remember though is that stereotypes, like most other things, are
not absolute, there are always exceptions. But because you can name a
few exceptions to the "stereotype", that does not invalidate it for
the majority that it does apply to.

That being said, I see it far more often from members of the left,
that they are quick to denounce criticism of their ideology as "hate
speech" (Such as conservative talk radio). Conversely, while the more
outspoken members of their "group" are caught using language that
equals or exceeds that of those they criticize, and are called to the
carpet for it, they cry "foul" and insist that they are only
expressing their "right" to disagree.

The double standard is there whether you want to admit it or not.

I find that typical for just about anything from the left........they cry
foul all the time for the very things they are guilty of. Race baiting is
another prime example.



Dave