On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:25:41 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:
snip

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used.

Yes, it was--but by whom? (By the way: the use of passive voice is often a good
way to make a truthful statement without having to attribute it. But don't tell
anyone! Shhhhhh.)

I used it. The passive voice wasn't intended to hide attribution. The user of
the phrase, me, was obvious from the preceding paragraph. Perhaps you began
responding before reading the entire paragraph.

No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

Someone's failure to rebut a particular comment does not conclusively prove its
merit.

The question had to do with the definition of 'party line', not the rebuttal of
some argument.

snip
snip
snip
snip

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

I am not going to let you off the hook on that one, John. You made your
comments about spelling/grammar in response to some of basskisser's posts. I
simply observed to you that such an approach is beneath you. Technically, it
belongs to a class of logical fallacy called "fallacies of distraction."

What hook am I on? To what does 'that one' refer? Are you discussing my comment
not debating anything? My comment had to do with this discussion with you. I
did not consider this discussion a debate, but more an exercise in semantics. I
made comments regarding basskisser's post, but I was not debating him. I made no
reference to the gist of his comments (which I couldn't understand anyway), but
to his name-calling while typing gibberish.

snip

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'.

Actually, these "discussions" really have little to do with the political
continuum. If I were to enthusiastically support[1] the current
administration's policies in the Middle East, would that make me a conservative?
How about if I also support reproductive rights (traditionally a "liberal"
position)? School vouchers? Gay marriage?

My position on any of these issues? I'm not sayin'. But slapping a label (e.g.
"liberal" or "conservative") on someone because of his position on a small
sampling of issues is not a good idea. I suspect that Mr. Krause believes me to
be aligned with you politically, since I don't insult you. So, let's say I
embrace every liberal cause that comes to the fore (do I? I'm not sayin');
Krause has already told us and demonstrated that he embraces an essentially
liberal political position. Would that make *me* "Harry's bud," as well?

You are preaching to the choir. I think you have, again, written a response
before reading the entire paragraph. As written, the paragraph provides a
background and rationale for my use of the term 'bud'. If each sentence is taken
separately, then yes, there are unrelated thoughts.

Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads

I realize that you've put two unrelated thoughts into this paragraph--but do you
believe that a person's boorish behavior is indicative of his political
affiliation? If you do, then you'd have to include a great many other people
here into a "liberal" camp--and they may object to that classification!

in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.

Well, if that's your definition of "bud," I suppose that's okay--but if you mean
"bud" also to mean "friend," you're on shaky ground, I think.

You made the assumption that I meant "bud" to mean "friend." As far as I know,
I'm the only person in the group who has even met Harry.

He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

Actually, you've just described an edema--which could be apt, as well.

Except that an edema is an abnormality. Calling someone an edema could be
considered name-calling. There is a negative connotation there.

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

("The jury will disregard...")

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?

*whoosh*

Over whose head did the *whoosh* go? Yours or mine?

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD