--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And apparently completely missed the fact that the > > > > > "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to successfully > > > > > defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because > > > > > attention was paid to it. > > > > > > > > A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin > > > > would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. > > > > > > > > "Why do you do that, friend?" > > > > > > > > "To keep the lions away" > > > > > > > > "But there aren't any lions here?" > > > > > > > > "See, it works!" > > > > > > Anytime you want to change your approach and have > > > an intellectually honest discussion, just let me > > > know, OK? > > > > Oh, back to this sort of stuff. Depressing. > > Yeah, that's what I thought. > > > Honest/dishonest. What on earth are you talking about? > > Look at the above. I am making a point. I believe it is valid. > > Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* > that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually > necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching > story as if that were a definitive response. > > > Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? Because that would > > be "dishonest" I suppose. > > No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story is a > thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent > argument.
*And* you're using Y2K as a stand-in for climate change, so you're trying to short-circuit argument about that at the same time.
