From: Adam Watt (adamwatt@mac.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 21:57:09 BST
On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 05:24 pm, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
>> ..when infact whenever you are confronted with a point you cannot
>> answer, you simply ignore it.
>
> Yes, I tend to ignore those whose main arguments are "you are a narrow
> minded old man" and a "rambling fool." Thanks for proving my point
> about
> leftists resorting to personal attacks because they have nothing of
> value
> to offer.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
Hello Platt,
Well. it may seem a bit harsh, so sorry if your offended.. borne of
frustration you might say.. but at least I got a response this time!
Even if it still doesn't answer the question. Why is that? Also, hardly
my main arguments were they? Or indeed, my arguments at all.. lets see
again shall we? -
>>> MSH asks:
>>>
>>>> The question remains: Why is killing 3000 civilians in NYC an act
>>>> of terror, while killing 10000 civilians in Iraq is not? Try to
>>>> answer, without calling Rush Limbaugh please.
A fair question, Platt does not respond. So...
AW writes -
>> Hello - It says.. TRY TO ANSWER PLEASE. You didn't. Again. Also,
>> people are not germs, not in the MOQ, or anywhere bar perhaps rabid
>> right-wing rhetoric...
Still no response, above Platt claims he does not respond to posts he
finds offensive (basically stated). No offense here that I can see,
STILL not even an attempt at a coherent response, or any for that
matter.. so.. -
AW writes again (provoked slightly by Platts own description of anyone
who enjoys the work of Chomsky as 'Chomsky worshippers'.. Pot calling
kettle, etc.. anyway YET AGAIN, I attempt to get a response (perhaps
you can see where the frustration is coming from?) -
..Infact, your looking quite incapable of a response, for the third
time of asking.. Ironic that you mention 'weakness of arguments' in
your previous
post :
Platt - 'But, be not intimidated, as I'm sure you're not. It's simply
a sign of the
weakness of their arguments.'
AW-
..when infact whenever you are confronted with a point you cannot
answer, you simply ignore it. Pretty damn weak I'd say. As far as I can
see your criticising someone you haven't even read, and therefore have
absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. Which makes you a narrow
minded old man whos opinions are about as credible as the WMD claims
your beloved neo-conservative administration used to manipulate your
populace in to justifying an otherwise untenable invasion.
(please note: description cited originally by Platt "narrow minded old
man' is provisional on the grounds of him making criticism of Chomsky
without having read his work. Still no claim to having had read it has
been made, so I provisionally I stand by it. Narrow minded this indeed
is, perhaps the age reference was unnecessary, but still it's true. Its
only offensive if you want it to be. And certainly it's not 'my main
arguments'. What do you 'have to offer')
Yourself, and Robert.M, so it seems. are content to make totally
unfounded allegations against Chomsky.. I ask you AGAIN - what have you
read of his? I suspect nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, if
you wish to refute anything he's said, you need to quote whatever that
may be in context, and then state what you refutation is. Otherwise,
sorry, but you just come across as a rambling fool.
(note also : I said that you Platt comes across as a rambling fool in
attacking work he apparently has not even read. And that is how I see
it. If that is wrong I asked you to correct me. You declined to do so.
So, I can only conclude that you have not read Chomsky, yet feel it
worthwhile to criticise his work. That you haven't read. Would you
really disagree that being critical of something your unaware of is
stupid behaviour?..)
You've avoided the above question, the 'critics' of Chomsky you cited
were of no significance.. etc etc etc..
AW adds -
..you have (avoided the question), so I write this to clear up the
apparent confusion of my intentions, and the nature of my argument. The
nature is this - Criticising someones work indirectly, and seemingly
without knowledge of it, is pointless. To correct you - THAT IS THE
MAIN ARGUMENT. Again, you need to quote (in context please), and refute
your chosen quotation, otherwise, these rabid posts amount to exactly
what I said - rambling foolishness. So, I ask you in all politeness,
please consider discontinuing with these sorry snipes at Chomskys work,
or else approach your critique in the aforementioned manner. Better
yet, consider reading his work before judging. And please consider
explaining this...
'Why is killing 3000 civilians in NYC an act of terror, while 10000 in
iraq is not'
I look forward to your reply.
Regards,
Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 23:33:17 BST