On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:03:01 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".
And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.
Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?
I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.
Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.
Certainly.
Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?
Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience
contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to
turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive
is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is
valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that
level of proof is usually not forthcoming.
Yet you keep begging for proof. If you ask others for proof of -their-
claims but refuse to provide proof of -your- claims then you are a
hypocrite, a fact which you have unwittingly proven so many times in
this newsgroup.
snip
With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?
You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present
pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told
you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by
your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I
bother?
Because even now, after you have gone to such great lengths to avoid
giving that info, I might just believe it. At the very least it would
lend a -little- bit credibility to your claims, which so far have no
credibility at all. But if you don't want to fork over the info that's
fine -- you go right on saying how you attended some anonymous tech
school, cite the opinions of imaginary engineers, and brag about how
you are financially well-to-do -- those are just three items in a long
list of unproven claims you have made in just the past few months. So
even if you -can- prove them, who cares? You're still an idiot, a
liar, a hypocrite and a homophobe. And after your latest revelations,
probably a closet Nazi, too.
I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.
Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.
My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?
No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.
Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take
me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike),
find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have
read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil
greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time.
It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter.
There are resources in a public library that simply are not available
on the internet. One of the biggest reasons is because of copyright
laws, but there is also a much wider variety of reference materials
available there as well. And since so many libraries now have internet
terminals, you can do -both- at the same time. If you're so worried
about creating greenhouse gasses then don't eat so much, since methane
is 20 times as reactive as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.....
oh, but that's right, you don't think global warming is caused by
humans. Well, that blows -that- excuse all to hell. But even if you
have any doubt, ride a bicycle, take a bus, hitch a ride with a
neighbor going in that direction. Or simply plan ahead to go there
next time you're in the area.
Or you can just sit at home and make excuses, which is just fine with
me.
Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".
No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.
Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......."
It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.
The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit".
Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the
published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally
correct, factual, insightful, and rational?
Apparently you don't have enough brains to realize that such books are
published because of the author's celebrity and/or controversial
status. It's easy money.
I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the
publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity.
On the contrary, factual content tends to be -very- important to
publishers. Books (by celebrities and controversial personalities) are
screened by teams of lawyers looking for possible cases of libel. But
those books tend to be mostly opinion, and opinion does not constitute
libel -- which is why -you- need to learn the difference between an
opinion and a fact. Have you learned that lesson yet?
Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.
Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......
Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world.
Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball.
Yep, mine works pretty darn well. It was one of the first things I
built when I went to tech school -- pretty simple stuff, I could write
a course on it.
Fortunately for you, the rest of us do.
I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is.
Not assinine at all -- it's people like me that keep people like you
from turning this country into a facist Christian autocracy.
You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust
the wrong people.
Wrong. I trust nobody except myself. And sometimes I don't even trust
myself, but that's only because of an incident long ago involving a
fifth of Quervo and some prank calls to 911.....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----