Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
> 
>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) once again, MS-understands
>> basic words's meanings:
>> > dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>> > 
>> >> Doug Laidlaw (laidlaws{at}myaccess.com.au) writes:
>> >> > John Royer says that this newsgroup is unwilling to
enter into "reasoned
>> >> > discourse" because no one agrees with his
conclusions.  I challenge
>> >> > him to set out his idea of "reasoned
discourse" and his reasoned grounds
>> >> > for holding his views.  I promise him that whether I
agree with his
>> >> > conclusions or not, I will not use insults or
denigration to counter
>> >> > a well thought-out argument.
>> >> > "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend with my life your
>> >> > right to say it."   but that having been said,
I don't have to agree
>> >> > afterward, any more than to start with.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Well, John?
>> >> 
>> >> I'm not John, but:
>> >> 
>> >> Resolved: Feminist is nothing but misandry coupled with demands
>> >> for one sex only special priviliges.
>> >> 
>> >> Proofs follow, from noted Feminists.
>> > 
>> > You have an odd notion of proof.  
>> 
>> ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, actual statements made by *acknowledged* leaders and
>> commentators of Feminism.
> 
> Your changing from "noted Feminists" to "*acknowledged*
leaders."

To a person who could read for comprehension, the one is the other.

Or, are you dim enough to claim that NOW Member #19526 speaks for
NOW, as a whole ?

> Soon you'll be anointing your favorite source of quotes as the
> "Empress of feminism!"

Don't give up the day job, bucko, your crystal ball is deeply...
*cracked*.
 
> However, random quotes out of context remain insufficient to "prove"
> anything about feminism.  

LOL ! Other than the common misandry contained therin, which *once
again*, you CANNOT even try to refute with cites of your own.


 
>> > All it seems to require is a peripherally related out-of-context quote
>> > from a few individuals and then you assert some sort of
"proof."
>> 
>> All that would be required to at least try to rebut my position  ( Which,
>> BTW, you were UNABLE to even make an attempt at,
> 
> Your "position" (which I _think_ is that "feminism
means what Andre
> says, and not what feminists says")

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

> has been rebutted many times on USENET. 

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

> You ignore the point of the rebuttal, and focus attacking the
> rebutter. 



> So yeah, I'll pass on providing you with grist for that mill.

As Dougie hoists up The White Flag Of Victory...
 
>> so you resort to SoreLoser ad homs ),
> 
> So I always assumed by "ad hom" you meant "ad hominem
attacks."

A common enough abbreviation. 

> Apparently you mean something else, since I haven't made any ad
> hominem attacks on you.  Want to translate for the rest of us?

So, you can make UNsupported claim, and but everyone else has
to offer proofs, at your behest ?

Hypocrite.

When you get around to PROVING your claims about the quotes,
then I'll be ready for the case for the defense.

But, until you PROVE your claims, why, as I'm already up with
proofs 1-0, I don't need to pad my score any farther.



Andre

 


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/5/05 8:23:10 PM ---