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: TigerPaw who wrote (32014)	8/24/2000 5:36:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Your hostility towards fundamentalists is boundless. I guarantee that if the drop is anomalous, there will be an investigation, even supposing your scenario were more than a paranoid fantasy.......

To: TigerPaw who wrote (32014)	8/24/2000 5:49:52 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

ROFLMAO....... Schools with 10% or more of fundamentalist Christain right students will sabatoge the tests, purposely miss answers, get the schools rated poor, and then turn their vouchers over a local religious school yep... you are right tigger, those students are just waiting to ""sabatoge"" those tests, i know some right now who are purposely NOT studying for that very reason.... hahhahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaahahahah....

To: TigerPaw who wrote (32014)	8/25/2000 8:29:44 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

TigerPaw, I do have to say I would trust the fundamentalist Christians far more to play fair than I would any hard core Democrat. Is the following from your training manual? How to Win Arguments I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules: * Drink Liquor. Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room. * Make things up. Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level." NOTE: Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house." * Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases. Memorize this list: Let me put it this way In terms of Vis-a-vis Per se As it were Qua So to speak You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement. * Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks. You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are: You're begging the question. You're being defensive. Don't compare apples and oranges. What are your parameters? This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. Here's how to use your comebacks: You say, "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873..." Your opponents says, "Lincoln died in 1865." You say "You're begging the question." OR You say, "Liberians, like most Asians..." Your opponents says, "Liberia is in Africa." You say, "You're being defensive." So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who carry weapons. ------------------------------------------------------------