PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (505149)	12/6/2003 9:06:31 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) of 769670

He guy... your post was short enough... would you like me to just QUOTE YOUR ENTIRE POST WORD FOR WORD (NO PROBLEM) AND THEN ASK MY SIMPLE QUESTION AGAIN? No. When you quote someone you don't just take a snippet out that alone would mean something other than what it would mean in its original context. You quote the post, making sure to maintain the poster's meaning. You did not do this. You quoted the statement on selection and then using solely the statement extrapolated a very stupid idea. It is a false thing to do. Would THAT get you to answer it? (Somehow, I doubt it! LOL!) Had you made the quote honestly, I would have answered you without pause. You <blank>... I wasn't 'arguing against' a 'position. I certainly wasn't 'arguing against ALL of your positions'... I was asking an explanatory question concerning ONE of your posts! False. You were only asking an irrelevant question in response to one out-of-context statement from one of my posts. That is a false thing to do. Well, 'stupid' isn't a very detailed refutation. The question deserved less than I gave it. I even answered it. Simply read the thread with integrity. And you clearly haven't answered the simple question. I suggest you take your own 'honesty advice'. Read the thread. You asked whether if disease struck I was "OK" with nature's will. I responded that nature has no will that I might judge as "OK" and that includes the purposeful destruction of my life because nature is beyond such things. I also responded that my position does not require I do nothing to continue living in the event disease strikes because human nature itself is one that uses its resources to live. Now that is quite accurate. Ask ANY intelligent being and they will tell you my answer is without flaw. You simply wished to hear foolishness in response to your foolishness and are disappointed. Read the thread - with integrity. I guess that proves my statement. You SURE don't want to answer that question. I already answered it, which it did not deserve. Read the thread - with integrity. WHY do you dance away from it so? Did you want a simple "yes" or "no?" I thought you were a bit more sophisticated than that. Very well then. The answer to your question is "Yes." This is true since human nature is one that naturally strives to use all available resources to live. It surely looks to the disinterested reader... like a very sore point to you Johannes. You are certainly not the judge of this, Buddy. I wager no intelligent reader, who is disinterested here, will tell you that the available data supports your contention. The fact is, I tend to answer questions of this nature beyond a mere "yes" and "no". But when it is clear I am faced with a heathen who wants something a little more simplistic, I will sometime condescend toward him as I have done toward you. (grin)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next