MM You make chains of dubious connections.
> > > >I've no choice but to work with the two quotes you've provided, one > >of them from me, in which I did not as you allege praise Luc mightily > >nor even unmightily for anything, nor have I yet expressed any > >opinion on the substance of any of his posts. I haven't noticed > >anyone praising Luc for raising these topics. I fail to see how you > >can extract this from my quote above, or from anything I've said > >about it. My point was clear, Luc provided some substantiation for > >his views, Arthur provided no substantiation at all for his highly > >contemptuous dismissal of them, and that doesn't fly here, whether > >it's in discussing Judaism and Zionism or whether unwashed biodiesel > >can damage your motor. Please explain what you mean. > >What I mean is that generally you seem glad to have the topic raised, There is no indication of that, I've made no such comments, nor implied it in any way, and it's not the case. If you wish to interpret such a silence as loud, then you should consider that that might be saying more about you than it does about me. >and that generally some of Luc's comments points seem to be >agreed-with, by yourself and-or by Todd. And-or? What does that mean, and-or? You want nice, clearcut, polarised sides, for-us and against-us? I doubt very much that Todd and I have any idea whether we agree on these issues or not. We do appear to agree that, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS ARGUMENTS, the manner in which Luc has been attacked lacks integrity. The four of you (I'll have to include you now) just can't see that obvious distinction. I expected that, and pointed it out in the first place, a strange thing to have to do: > >Now perhaps some sort of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type > >thinking may lead you to conclude that I'm defending Luc. I'm not > >defending Luc, that's up to him, if he chooses to, but I am attacking > >you. Yet Arthur, for one, will apparently ignore anything that needs ignoring in order to conclude that I'm supporting Luc's views on "The Protocols" so he can write me off as a Nazi or whatever as well. I'll be very damn' generous and conclude that it's a blind spot rather than intentional, which is one hell of a lot more generous than he's been, and the rest of you too. >and that generally some of Luc's comments points seem to be >agreed-with, by yourself and-or by Todd. Not in either case. Go and have another look. You're seeing things that aren't there, neither said nor implied. I wonder why that might be? I have expressed no opinion on Luc's comments, nor has any such opinion been implied, and I believe that to be the case with Todd as well. I haven't responded to any of Luc's posts in this thread. In response to Matt, I made some points to distinguish Zionism from Judaism, without commenting on Luc's posts. I asked Matt if he saw an attack on Zionism as anti-Semitic, and asked Luc if he was bashing Jews or bashing Zionists. Matt didn't respond, Luc did, and I haven't responded to Luc's response. >If I have erroneously spoken >for you then I apologize. You have. But this is a very backhanded apology and I don't accept it. >Maybe I should have said that he is being >strongly supported at least in his right to continue the topic. You'd be wrong again, there's no indication of that either. I said it was up to him whether he chose to defend himself against these attacks, not the same thing at all. You'd deny him that? You might notice that he has not defended himself - he's sent several other posts on different topics but hasn't responded at all to being called a liar, a hate-filled Nazi, the kind of person that brings death and destruction to the world, an instrument of Satan and so on and on by people who've made just such specious misconnections as you have and have offered nothing by way of substance to justify their attacks. Unlike Luc. Look at their "proof" - white is white and black is black and Luc is a liar. Look at this circular argument: "My attack was substantiated by the using "the Protocols" as a basis for his argument which further my claim that his arguments are ugly and hateful." From which it must therefore most obviously follow that if I disagree with such a specious argument then I'm necessarily supporting Luc and agree with "the Protocols". That's pure BS. Yet you say this: >conversation, and further there are generally accepted and I think >valuable principles of politesse, civility, friendliness and I guess >"dialectic standards" by which I mean we try to hold ourselves to some >sort of standard for good thinking. It puzzles me how this can co-exist with the rest of your post. >However, enough time and effort seems to be put forth by you in >responding to Luc's detractors that I was surprised by the lack of any >response to his introduction into the conversation of what I take to >be stands-out-like-a-sore-thumb low-level anti-semitic drivel. See above, above and above. >His >"substantiation" included this low-level drivel. Maybe it's not >drivel. Maybe I'm mistaken and it's genius. It's your opinion that it's "stands-out-like-a-sore-thumb low-level anti-semitic drivel", and you haven't substantiated that either. If you want to say so then say why, otherwise it's just an opinion. Ah, but this is a "special" subject, isn't it? It's not the same as whether unwashed biodiesel can damage your motor. Sorry, but it is the same. "Label and dismiss" doesn't fly, whatever the subject. > >>established arguments, then I wonder that there is *no comment* from > >>the all-of-a-sudden too-busy gallery when he brings forth a statement > >>such as the above. > > > >What nonsense! Aren't you doing rather the same thing? > >You don't owe me or anyone else your time, and likewise, I certainly >do not regard myself as owing anyone in this group a single second of >my time, with the possible exception that there is some implicit >agreement to make an effort to follow up sometimes in a mutual >conversation, and further there are generally accepted and I think >valuable principles of politesse, civility, friendliness and I guess >"dialectic standards" by which I mean we try to hold ourselves to some >sort of standard for good thinking. > >It seemed to me a little bizarre that Luc made this statement and got >little or no response, other than excoriation of those who were driven >to the point of being maddened by him. While being maddened is not an >excuse for, in some areas, poor argumentation, I did not think it >inappropriate to call attention to what I thought was a very >problematic statement on Luc's part. Fair enough, call away, but once again you've merely labelled it and dismissed it, also fair enough as long as you don't pretend you did more than that. But that's not the point at all, not the point you were trying to make, which is that a non-response to what you label a problematic statement demonstrated tacit support for it, which is not fair enough, but you've used it, along with your misperception that he'd been "praised so mightily" when he hadn't been praised at all, to fabricate a specious case that those who have criticised the way Luc has been attacked, by means of just such specious arguments and worse, are supporting his case. Your next step would be to label me, Todd, Hakan, Gustl and others anti-Semites and perhaps worse, just like Luc, or to have provided collateral support for others here who're itching to do that. Go ahead, nothing's to stop you, but you'll only be labelling yourself. If I said Saddam Hussein should have a fair and open trial in accordance with international law would that mean I think he's a great guy for "gassing his own people" or whatever? Not the same? It's not the same in that there's no basis for any comparison of Luc with Saddam Hussein, otherwise it is the same. (And now I suppose I'll have to clarify that I did not say that Saddam Hussein should have a fair and open trial in accordance with international law, I merely used it as a hypothetical comparison. In fact I'd have quite a few awkward questions to ask before I'd get as far as saying that.) >I think that I should not have implied that it's a matter of you or >anyone else "owing" time to devote to that comment. Since I am not >that willing to study the matter, and figure out whether the >Protocols, and the way the topic was introduced, are properly >dismissed by me as a clear symptom of nonsense, I think I was trying >to get away with seeing if someone could please respond on that point. If that's all you wanted you had a strange way of going about it, wouldn't you say? I would say. >Since you apparently think my effort to get away with that has been >"nonsense", then I won't try further. Good. Keith Previous: >Hello MM > >Please see below. > >>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:49:39 +0900, you wrote: >> >> >Hello Arthur >> > >> >You lose! >> > >> >I suppose it's no big surprise that a thread such as this should hit >> >Godwin's Law, but it sure didn't take you long. >> >>[...] >> >> > >> >Whether you agree with it or not, Luc provided some analysis and some >> >references and links, which you dismiss as "proven scams and hate >> >literature" and liken them to "Mein Kampf". It just doesn't work that >> >way here. We're all entitled to our opinions, and entitled to express >> >them too, but when you're attempting to discredit someone else's >> >view, which he's provided some substantiation for, it needs a little >> >more than just an opinion and a contemptuous slap-aside. So either >> >add some substance to it, or don't expect to be treated with any >> >respect. >> > >> >>I've read through a few of Luc's comments and found them worth some >>consideration. However, I haven't read much, in part because of this, >>from May 27: >> >> >Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:31:28 -0000 >> > >> >A Clean Break - Strategy for Securing the Realm. Pay attention to >> >the signatories. >> >http://www.irmep.org/Policy_Briefs/3_27_2003_Clean_Break_or_Dirty_War >> >.html >> >There's still more to it than that, but lest I be labelled >> >a "conspiracy nut" it shall remain as such :), but then I don't >> >really care who labels me with what so here goes anyway: >> >In conjunction with the above "Clean Break" document written by the >> >main instigators of the Iraq invasion we pony it up to another much >> >maligned document whose authenticity was declared "a forgery" by a >> >Swiss court, but then that judgement was overturned as >> >unsubstantiated but it is only the original denigration that is >> >publicised for obvious propaganda value; the document of course >> >is "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" outlining a world >> >control strategy whom some have "theorised" was actually originally >> >written by none other than Myer Amschtel Rothschild when he was >> >setting up his world banking empire. >> >http://www.usa-the-republic.com/illuminati/zion.html is where to go >> >read it. It would seem odd that a "forgery" (normally a copy of an >> >original) would hold information that is now common fact in the >> >world we live in. A coincidence? Does the sun rise everyday by >> >chance? >> >>As I am not a scholar on this document, but was more offended, as I >>said, by the manner in which the topic of the document was raised, I'd >>like to ask if anyone here has any response to this "analysis" of >>Luc's. If Luc is to be praised so mightily for raising topics that >>take some analysis and effort and (arguably) courage in the face of >>established arguments, then I wonder that there is *no comment* from >>the all-of-a-sudden too-busy gallery when he brings forth a statement >>such as the above. > >I've no choice but to work with the two quotes you've provided, one >of them from me, in which I did not as you allege praise Luc >mightily nor even unmightily for anything, nor have I yet expressed >any opinion on the substance of any of his posts. I haven't noticed >anyone praising Luc for raising these topics. I fail to see how you >can extract this from my quote above, or from anything I've said >about it. My point was clear, Luc provided some substantiation for >his views, Arthur provided no substantiation at all for his highly >contemptuous dismissal of them, and that doesn't fly here, whether >it's in discussing Judaism and Zionism or whether unwashed biodiesel >can damage your motor. Please explain what you mean. > >>established arguments, then I wonder that there is *no comment* from >>the all-of-a-sudden too-busy gallery when he brings forth a statement >>such as the above. > >What nonsense! Aren't you doing rather the same thing? > >Keith > > >>MM ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
