Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (1910)	7/26/1999 9:51:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No one. She's so stupid she can't even read. JLA

To: Bill who wrote (1910)	7/26/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Bill, I said Menlo Park because in a prior post I had mentioned that it took an hour on Friday to go from Palo Alto/Menlo Park to Burlingame. You are correct Menlo Park was not the town you mentioned specifically, (however it is in SM county), but it really isn't germane to the argument since the bulk of the time commuting to San Rafael is utilized in SF and going over GG bridge (1 hour), Waldo Grade in Marin (another hour) and general 101 congestion into the city (hour #3). The point in all this however is not specifics like this. My argument is that to have a debate on any topic some assumptions need to be made, that either side is making the best case they can, and then go from there. The problem with you is you don't do that, the conservatives here don't do that... and thats what Dan used to call a "high school debate trick". Its really tiring for the other side. For example take the discussion we had about men's sports. I mentioned there was a situation where an owner violated his own salary cap causing a split among the owners. You assumed I was talking about baseball and since baseball doesn't have a cap my comments were the stupidest comments you had ever heard, blah blah blah. Then an onslaught of chimes on that theme by JLA and others. I then dug up the Jones piece and clarified the matter... HOWEVER, even if I had made the error thinking the Jones matter was baseball, it still was a valid point. We both know you are aware of this happening in football or other sports. You are not trying to debate the topic with me, you simply want to nitpick my argument to death in an attempt to gratify yourself. A similar situation with other so-called arguments on misc. topics here. There is one meaningful gun shop in this town and violence occured there. Someone posted a piece that claimed the 2nd shooter was a hero and I am contesting that.... THAT was the point. You then jump onto my remarks about the main gun shop as being the only shop "in town". Were there any other gun shops in a 100-mile radius? How about 99 miles, 98? Does this invalidate my claim that shooter #2 is not a hero do you think? (apparently so). Someone then pulls up a firearms shop list from yahoo that has all kinds of individuals listed as firearms resellers, as well as sporting goods shops which have guns on order. One of these "stores" is in San Rafael. You can commute there in an hour... in a helicopter? And what does this have to do with the original point - answer - nothing, just more nitpicking gratification on your part. I have said to you that I could probably pull up an esoteric survey somewhere that credits Gore winning, certainly in my state and others. But I don't do that, because I don't believe he will win, you see (maybe Ca but nowhere else). I give you the courtesy of my best guess, I don't think it is worthwhile to argue about a Gore win. Same thing with gun surveys. There are surveys which show the majority of people are for firearm regulation, the problem with these surveys is the urban populations outweigh the rural and thus things are weighted erroneously. When was the last time your side actually presented a true picture of some gun survey? It happened again this weekend! With that U of Chicago concealed weapon report that has been disputed so often, its hard to believe someone would present that as "proof" concealed weapons reduce crime. Once again, we have to start at GROUND ZERO on these matters because the conservatives don't truthfully present their argument, they are trying to tire out the opposing side even when they know they are posting one small section of a complex matter that has been successfully contested over and over. A long time ago Dipy berated you for claiming not to know Bob Barr's record. You seemed surprised he didn't believe you didn't know about Barr and the Christian Right. Dipy's real problem was this very matter.... where the conservatives had posted snippets of an argument - lied with statistics, etc. deliberately, consistently, and at some point the opposition just decides to tune out. If you ever decide to actually discuss a topic to the best of your abilities, say what you (really) know, focus on the natter instead of the trivial nitpick detail technique, I'll bet a lot of people will be interested in debating with you.