From: Adam Watt (adamwatt@mac.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 00:38:54 BST
A reminder for you Platt. Didn't get a response the last time...
> From: Adam Watt <adamwatt@mac.com>
> Date: Thu Jun 3, 2004 9:57:09 pm Europe/London
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD "biological" crime
>
>
> On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 05:24 pm, Platt Holden wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>>> ..when infact whenever you are confronted with a point you cannot
>>> answer, you simply ignore it.
>>
>> Yes, I tend to ignore those whose main arguments are "you are a narrow
>> minded old man" and a "rambling fool." Thanks for proving my point
>> about
>> leftists resorting to personal attacks because they have nothing of
>> value
>> to offer.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Platt
>>
>>
> Hello Platt,
>
> Well. it may seem a bit harsh, so sorry if your offended.. borne of
> frustration you might say.. but at least I got a response this time!
> Even if it still doesn't answer the question. Why is that? Also,
> hardly my main arguments were they? Or indeed, my arguments at all..
> lets see again shall we? -
>
>>>> MSH asks:
>>>>
>>>>> The question remains: Why is killing 3000 civilians in NYC an act
>>>>> of terror, while killing 10000 civilians in Iraq is not? Try to
>>>>> answer, without calling Rush Limbaugh please.
>
> A fair question, Platt does not respond. So...
>
> AW writes -
>
>>> Hello - It says.. TRY TO ANSWER PLEASE. You didn't. Again. Also,
>>> people are not germs, not in the MOQ, or anywhere bar perhaps rabid
>>> right-wing rhetoric...
>
> Still no response, above Platt claims he does not respond to posts he
> finds offensive (basically stated). No offense here that I can see,
> STILL not even an attempt at a coherent response, or any for that
> matter.. so.. -
>
> AW writes again (provoked slightly by Platts own description of anyone
> who enjoys the work of Chomsky as 'Chomsky worshippers'.. Pot calling
> kettle, etc.. anyway YET AGAIN, I attempt to get a response (perhaps
> you can see where the frustration is coming from?) -
>
> ..Infact, your looking quite incapable of a response, for the third
> time of asking.. Ironic that you mention 'weakness of arguments' in
> your previous
> post :
>
> Platt - 'But, be not intimidated, as I'm sure you're not. It's simply
> a sign of the
> weakness of their arguments.'
>
> AW-
> ..when infact whenever you are confronted with a point you cannot
> answer, you simply ignore it. Pretty damn weak I'd say. As far as I
> can see your criticising someone you haven't even read, and therefore
> have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. Which makes you a
> narrow minded old man whos opinions are about as credible as the WMD
> claims your beloved neo-conservative administration used to manipulate
> your populace in to justifying an otherwise untenable invasion.
>
> (please note: description cited originally by Platt "narrow minded old
> man' is provisional on the grounds of him making criticism of Chomsky
> without having read his work. Still no claim to having had read it has
> been made, so I provisionally I stand by it. Narrow minded this
> indeed is, perhaps the age reference was unnecessary, but still it's
> true. Its only offensive if you want it to be. And certainly it's not
> 'my main arguments'. What do you 'have to offer')
>
> Yourself, and Robert.M, so it seems. are content to make totally
> unfounded allegations against Chomsky.. I ask you AGAIN - what have
> you read of his? I suspect nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Either
> way, if you wish to refute anything he's said, you need to quote
> whatever that may be in context, and then state what you refutation
> is. Otherwise, sorry, but you just come across as a rambling fool.
>
> (note also : I said that you Platt comes across as a rambling fool in
> attacking work he apparently has not even read. And that is how I see
> it. If that is wrong I asked you to correct me. You declined to do so.
> So, I can only conclude that you have not read Chomsky, yet feel it
> worthwhile to criticise his work. That you haven't read. Would you
> really disagree that being critical of something your unaware of is
> stupid behaviour?..)
>
> You've avoided the above question, the 'critics' of Chomsky you cited
> were of no significance.. etc etc etc..
>
> AW adds -
>
> ..you have (avoided the question), so I write this to clear up the
> apparent confusion of my intentions, and the nature of my argument.
> The nature is this - Criticising someones work indirectly, and
> seemingly without knowledge of it, is pointless. To correct you -
> THAT IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT. Again, you need to quote (in context
> please), and refute your chosen quotation, otherwise, these rabid
> posts amount to exactly what I said - rambling foolishness. So, I ask
> you in all politeness, please consider discontinuing with these sorry
> snipes at Chomskys work, or else approach your critique in the
> aforementioned manner. Better yet, consider reading his work before
> judging. And please consider explaining this...
>
> 'Why is killing 3000 civilians in NYC an act of terror, while 10000 in
> iraq is not'
>
> I look forward to your reply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>> Mail Archives:
>> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>> Nov '02 Onward -
>> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>>
>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 00:43:31 BST