[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at lists.cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: velovich at aol.com (V-Man)
Date: 09 Apr 2003 06:09:04 GMT
Lines: 26

>>And here's another thing...we're now in the last phases of the battle.  The
>>military has now searched many of the places where chemical or other WMD
>were
>>supposed to be kept, finding nothing.
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html>
>
>That is not "nothing".

  What bugs me about JMS and others taht so condemn this war *at it's outset*
is the fundemental unwillingness to accept the stated calims for it's
necessity.
   This unwillingness is the foundation of their belief system, and it seems
largely based on partisan politics.  I may be very mistaken on this, but that
is what it *seems*.
   The inability to wait and see, the sharp, vicious rhetoric, much of it
unfounded, and yet, this is what many of these opponents of the current regieme
villified Conservatives for not five years ago.

   If not partisan politics, it cetainly must be a case of "do as I say, not as
I do".


Play more with Claymore!  V-Man
Living Vicariously through my Characters...


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 09 Apr 2003 22:40:19 GMT
Lines: 67

>What bugs me about JMS and others taht so condemn this war *at it's outset*
>is the fundemental unwillingness to accept the stated calims for it's
>necessity.

Necessity is a subset of verifiability.  None of the claims have thus far been
proven.  Not here, not in the court of world opinion, not with a single shred
of real evidence.  One must have accurate evidence to determine whether or not
something is necessary, you don't decide it's necessary then back into the
proof.  

So sorry, that argument doesn't wash.

>This unwillingness is the foundation of their belief system, and it seems
>largely based on partisan politics. 

You do not know my belief system, so this is not a reasonable statement, and
the "partisan politics" bit is an old line pulled out by the right whenever
they want to put down somebody who doesn't want to go along with the Plan.  If
a republican does something, it seems to me, the argument is that it's for the
good of the country; if  you take issue with that, it's Partisan Politics.

It's just a debating trick to distract one from looking at the evidence and
evaluating it on its own merits.  Sorry, but I don't fall for that one.

>the inability to wait and see,

Don't you think we should have seen the evidence *before* we launched into
this?  Do you electrocute someone and *then* hold the trial?

>the sharp, vicious rhetoric,

Subjective.  Yours has been far more dismissive, vicious and condemning than
anything else I've seen here.

>much of it
>unfounded,

I've been careful to provide documentation to most things I've said
here...whereas you, when asked to cite sources, tend to turn to smoke.  You
have been caught in any number of outright inaccuries.  You just dodge and
weave and change subjects and go for the partisan politics line.

>this is what many of these opponents of the current regieme
>villified Conservatives for not five years ago.

No, there was not an invasion of another country going on five years ago, so
the two are not comparable.  Further, the Whitewater investigation, after
millions of dollars, showed that there was nothing to the allegegations.

And again, you are changing subject, hoping to use a distraction to something
five years ago to avoid dealing with what's on the table in front of us right
now, and are dealing in a situation that is not comparable on any two points.

Your poor and painfully obvious debating techniques are showing, as is your
lack of any kind of foundation from which to make them.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)