On May 8, 6:43=A0pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On May 8, 5:10 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Polly the Parrot wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Fran <Fran.B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I do, which is why I find ignorant, disingenuous, sub-political,
> >>>> tabloid-style angst in this place objectionable.
> >>> Go away and give Penny Wong a good licking.
> >>> You might feel better after that.
> >> You and Fran are well matched,
> >> she rejects argument based on rights,
> >> and you reject argument based on reason.
>
> > Whereas you conduct argument based on obfuscatory hectoring dressed up
> > as 'rights' and don't bother with reason at all.
>
> Spare us your ignorant, disingenuous, sub-political,
> tabloid-style angst.
>
Hmm ... it seems I should add schoolyard-style fingerpointing or
guilty projection to your attributes. My observations above were
directed in this instance at the LJHFOS and its fellow travellers, but
it does indeed seem apt in your case too.
> I'm very happy to have arguments based on rights,
>
> That's a lie. =A0I presented you with a well supported
> one in support of Aussie athletes being allowed to
> run
You did no such thing. You contrived an extensive set of utterly
spurious assertions that yoked the language of human rights to your
own populist posturing and tabloid-style abuse.
For a time, I attempted to treat you as if you were a rational and
well-intended person whose support for Rudd had driven him to defend
the indefencible, but it became clear after you refused several
attempts to hold a rational discussion that you were either unwilling
or incapable of playing your part in such an exchange -- once again,
much like the LJHFOS and its fellow travellers.
Regrettably, this was not the first time I've watched you carry on
like the proverbial pork chop. I do recall your references to 'skip
sluts' a while back as setting a very low standard for those
*ostensibly* on the non-conservative side of arguments here.
> despite threats of violence from your fellow protestors,
> and you simply declared I had no argument and flounced off! =A0B^
>
I simply lost interest in your silly trolling flaming game. Your
interest was limited to the opportunity my responses, at least in your
mind, offered to stamp your foot and squeal loudly.
> You never made any attempt to engage with the argument, simply
> claimed there was none.
>
A judgement one may conclude was justified, given that a total of zero
other posters backed it.
> I will leave you to play with your intellectual equals.
pfft ... you clearly lack the tools to make any evaluation of
intellect or anything else of substance.
Fran
|
