152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: − + + + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers"
Another point-by-point. Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction. Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.
Another point-by-point. Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction. Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.
*Credit [[Noam Chomsky]], the godfather of [[deconstructionism]]. Maybe [[Theodore Adorno]] and the [[Frankfurt School]] of [[critical thinking]], the birthplace of [[political corrrectness]], too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
*Credit [[Noam Chomsky]], the godfather of [[deconstructionism]]. Maybe [[Theodore Adorno]] and the [[Frankfurt School]] of [[critical thinking]], the birthplace of [[political corrrectness]], too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, so I accuse you of unnecessary deconstruction and straying off topic, and you respond with unnecessary deconstruction and straying even further off topic. I imagine your next post will involve the potato famine and the film "Heat" in some arbitrary way that I cant wait to read.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre. If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.
So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre. If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.
*The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial. Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
*The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial. Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mary Cheney had been, prior to that, public about her sexual orientation. When John Edwards mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality at the VP debate, Chaney thanked him for the kind words. Stating publically available information is not "exposing" anybody, nor, if it was, would it indicate Kerry is of week morals, nor, if it did, would it connect to the swifties at all because the theoretical moral issue is about privacy and not deception, as the Swifties accuse. Honestly, do you even understand a single thing that you've been talking about here? How can you confuse exposing facts with concealing facts? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous. B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.
The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous. B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.
*Ok, we'll lool at these specific claims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
*Ok, we'll lool at these specific claims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to. Mean time, stating them as outright fact is unjustified, no? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them. I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them. I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
*''you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them''
*''you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them''
:Why would I? That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why would I? That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Marvelous. So you have no problem with the edit. Lord knows why it took you a few days to say as much, or why you felt the need to drag Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tech, and Mary Cheney into it, but thats as may be and I suppose its my fault for not predicting this kind of behavior here. I'll be making the change later. when I have more time. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)