IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT THAT MATTERS?

I think that the hysteria must be reigned in.

Hysteria does not work.

Evidence is always necessary to show the truth or falsity of a statement.

There will always be "Sob-sisters" around.

There will always be supporters of the hysterical like Frank A Pisa around.

Anyone who reads the history of World War II will find that Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of two Atomic bombs on Japan to put an end to the war.

He was raked over the coals by the "peaceniks".

But Harry stood his ground. He "pre-empted" the rest of the war which would have cost our country thousands perhaps millions of casualties.

What people like Frank A Pisa and sister will never understand is that it is the job of Presidents like Truman and Bush to make difficult decisions.

If the people, who, in the last resort, are the judges of the rightness or wrongness of the President's actions don't like what he or she is doing, they can vote for someone else.

We shall see but in the meanwhile, there should be no more charges without evidence, since, as I said, when I made the charge that Clinton had raped Juanita Broadderick, I was met with-

"There's no proof"
"You can't say that"

Exactly- No proof- Sister and Frank A Pisa.

Proof!!!!!!!!

Scroll

Poor clueless Gato.

It must be horrible to struggle with thoughts like these with so little brain power.


Okay, let's take this one at a time -- and I will go slowly so that you can keep up, Gato.



Sister Joan wrote an excellent essay -- and McG came along and called it fiction.

I responded and showed him that all the items he called "fiction" were not fiction at all. The fiction was in his distortion of what Sister Joan said.

Now you have come along and essentially said the same thing as McG -- and I have shown that the things Sister Joan said were not fiction -- and that such fiction as there was in this thread came from the distortions you and McG have made.



Now, in a piece of trash posting, you are claiming that Sister Joan's essay is a piece of trash. And the reason you say it is a piece of trash, Gato, is because "...she does not give evidence for her statements."

Gato, sit down for a second while I tell you something that is going to buckle your knees.

Many, many fine essays contain statements that are simply statements. Many, many fine essays do not contain any evidence. Especially when the material being covered is self-evident.

You then went on to write:




Oh, Gato, that would have every so much more effective if only you were correct.

But you weren't.

Evidence sometimes can be proof -- but to suppose that evidence is proof is really evidence of ignorance. Not proof, mind you, but evidence.

Often evidence is miles away from proof. Evidence often is circumstantial - and is anything but proof.

It is a good idea, Gato, before sarcastically insinuating that someone does not know some truth that you are about to reveal - that you actually have some truth to reveal. Otherwise you can come away looking like a fool

In any case, you then wrote:

My, my, my! What a brilliant attempt at appearing both intellectual and open-minded. Too bad it clashes with so much else of what you have said previously.

McG said this about Sister Joan's comments:



And you Gato -- ahhh...you! Here are some of the things you said previously about the statements you now call "absolutely correct."











C'mon now, Gato, which is it???

Are Sister Joan's statements actually fiction, wild generalizations, conjecture, sweeping unsupported generalizations, incorrect...

...or "absolutely correct?"




Please, somebody.

Come help Gato.

I feel uncomfortable being in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Perhaps his parents shouldn't let him use the computer.

I have a question for you frank.

Are you taking the essay at face value or are you taking the undertones and inferences into account?

If your taking it at face value, I can understand your arguements, as she makes a case for what she says...however...if you read the undertones of what her message says, then what we say holds more weight. There are many implications in that essay that I just don't agree with. That's all.

McG

My guess is that the good Sister Joan had her tongue planted firmly in her cheek when she wrote that piece. My guess is she had a huge smile on her face as the words began to flow.

It was over-the-top satire -- it was over-simplification -- but most importantly, it was designed to elicit exactly the kind of reaction both you and Gato registered.

In my opinion, it was emminently successful in what I see as her intentions.

Take my word for it, McG, those of us who abhor conservatism have seem so many posts of a similar kind coming from your side -- I really cannot come up with a decent estimate of the number.

The thing I try to do when I read one of those conservative screeds, which usually are not nearly as innocently worded as was Sister Joan's effort, is either to ignore them -- or respond to them with as much rebuttal ammo as I can muster.

I try not to do what you and Gato did -- which was to attack the piece inappropriately.

Much, much better to have acknowledged that she was satirizing -- and had some decent material to work with -- but that the overall tone of the piece was skewed.

You did that eventually -- just as Gato eventually acknowledged that Sister Joan was "absolutely correct in her statements" -- and it is to your credit in this interaction that you did.

Like I said, my guess is that Sister Joan was purposely being provocative and engaging in caricature with the intention of making some very, very valid points about the cluelessness of the current administration and its capricious explanations of its reasons for going to war -- but doing so in a way that would ruffle feathers.

A success by any standard of measurement, wouldn't you agree?

Frank A Pisa becomes tiresome. He obviously has no idea of the Guidelines established on these posts.

I will inform him.

Debate Guidelines:

BE SPECIFIC

FEW THINGS ARE MORE IRRITATING(NOT TO MENTION WORTHLESS) THAN READING SOME POORLY THOUGHT OUT CLAIM.

Such generalizations are never really true.

Such generalizations are never really true.

Such generalizations are never really true.


VERIFY YOUR CLAIMS. DIFFERENTIATE FACTS AND OPINIONS. IF YOUR CLAIM ISN'S SOMETHING YOU ARE ABLE TO VERIFY, NOTE THAT IT IS ONLY YOUR OPINION.

No one but an idiot would say that Sister's hysterical post is not FILLED with unproven and unsourced generalizations.

THE DEBATE GUIDLINES, MY DEAR DEPISA, SAYS GENRALIZATIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED SINCE THEY ARE NEVER REALLY TRUE.

I don's say this , Frank De Pisa, the Guidelines say it.

Does Sister verify her claims?

Never. Not once. She blithely goes on spewing idiocies and never once attempts to verify.

Does Mr. DePisa agree that the Guidelines say:
"Verify your claims"?

I don't say it. The guidelines say it. Of course, If you and sister are above the law, that's another story.


Does sister ever say that it is ONLY HER OPINION?

Never.

Yet the guidelines say

Differentiate fact and Opinion.
Sister does not do so and Mr.De Pisa does not do so either.

Of course, I will be happy to follow new guidelines if and when issued.

I am able to denigrate as well as the next person.

Did Frank De Pisa know that William Jefferson Clinton fathered a black child in Arkansas?

Can you believe that when I made that statement someone had the nerve to challenge it and to dare me to show proof.
Of course, I withdrew the statement.

Sister, I am afraid, will not. She should read the Guidelines. You should too, Mr. De Pisa.

I am happy that Mr. De Pisa has retreated to the position that Sister's piece is, as he says, "Over the top satire" and "was engaging in caricature"

I am strongly on the side of the guidelines - Verification-No generalizations allowed- Be specific. But, If Mr. DePisa and his cronies will allow Sister to post a "satire" and "caricature"< I am sure that Mr. DePisa will not be so unfair as to object if a satire and caricature is done from the other side.

Or will he object????

Sorry, but only a moron would be so stupid as not to realize that Sister Joan did not write her essay for A2K -- and A2's guidelines.


Will someone please wake Gato up.


I notice you cannot seem to get my name right, Gato. Only a jerkoff would constantly mock another person's name -- but please continue if you like. I enjoy thinking of you that way.




Both of my above comments apply to this sophomorism.

Re-read them.



You are really fun to have around, Gato. Please stick around.

scroll
scroll, pissing matches are soooo boring!

---BumbleBeeBoogie

Re: IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT THAT MATTERS?

Wonderful stuff, McG. Sadly, its value will be lost on those for whom it is intended.

Does anyone else picture a certain poster as a scrawny little man with great big sideburns in a dingy black suit and dirty collared white shirt, ripped Chuck Taylors firmly planted, blackened nailed right hand on heart and left lifted skyward as he declaims yet another tirade, odour of mad dog drifting valiantly out over the crowd?

Re: IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT THAT MATTERS?



Unfortunately, I was able to show that the supposed "lies and half-truths" were not lies or half-truths.

But I doubt Scrat will ever be able to see that. She is so mired in her self-indulgence, she has no room for reason.