>
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > news:7tVdc.6216$BR1.5954@okepread03...
> >
> >>"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c58hq4$qb0$0@pita.alt.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>news:uMEdc.6138$BR1.5638@okepread03...
> >>>
> >>>>"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:c574j2$eua$0@pita.alt.net...
> >>>> No one believes he does not read these exchanges except for you,
> >>>>Renfield, and even the departure of evil does not mean that it cannot
> >
> > be
> >
> >>>>discussed. Stalin has been dead for over 50 years and his evil is
> >
> > still
> >
> >>>>discussed, as is Hitler's. Whether Mr Gastrich is as evil as these
> >>>
> >>>men--and
> >>>
> >>>>I do not abide by 'levels' of evil, evil is still evil--we can also
> >
> > talk
> >
> >>>>about the evil transgressions of persons such as the evangelists who
> >>
> >>have
> >>
> >>>>never posted in Usenet. A lack of presence does not shield an evil
> >>
> >>person
> >>
> >>>>from scrutiny or prosecution. You are simply avoiding the facts, as
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>are
> >>>
> >>>>wont to do, and the ridiculous part of it is that you interjected
> >>
> >>yourself
> >>
> >>>>into these discussions in the first place. Deciding now that his
> >>
> >>absence
> >>
> >>>>means he should not be discussed is interesting consider how long you
> >>>
> >>>*have*
> >>>
> >>>>been discussing him. If his absence means we cannot discuss him
> >
> > *now*,
> >
> >>>why
> >>>
> >>>>did his absence not mean we could not discuss him *before*, when you
> >>
> >>were
> >>
> >>>>fully involved in these threads?
> >>>> Your capriciousness is so obvious, Renfield, as is your
> >
> > unilateral
> >
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>rather questionable applications of what you would claim are polite
> >>>>standards.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anastasia
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Like I say, I'm not discussing him, but if you want to talk about
> >
> > Hitler,
> >
> >>go
> >>
> >>>ahead.
> >>
> >> I see you still will resort to rhetoric, little demon. I will
> >
> > discuss
> >
> >>what I like; and I simply noted that the standard you presumed to invoke
> >>yesterday was not the standard prior. You invoked the standard out of
> >>convenience and, I am sure, a recognition of the fact that your position
> >
> > was
> >
> >>indefensible, but that was not your *stated* reason. So you were being
> >>disingenuous.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I mean, screw Godwin.
> >>
> >> It is a stupid "rule."
> >>
> >> Anastasia
> >>
> >
> >
> > Discuss what you like. I mean screw godwin, I agree it is a stupid rule.
All
> > I'm saying is that I'm not gonna be drawn on Jason, but I might be drawn
on
> > Hitler.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Translation; "let's change the subject".
>
Correct. I'm not doing that subject, so let's change the subject.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |
|