Re: OT: Did they lie or not?

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:56:15 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On 17 Nov 2005 11:37:01 -0600, Jim Blansett
><jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:42:10 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip of terminally boring, repetive rhetoric>
>
>Not really. What I asked:
>
>>>You acknowledged reading through a posting where Shawn Hines made
>>>those outlandish claims -- and said nothing about them. You cheered
>>>his posting.
>>>
>>>Care to comment now? Do you agree that equating Abu Ghraib with Nazi
>>>concentration camps is absurd? Care to comment about the absurdity of
>>>comparing a term-limited and balance-of-power-limited president with a
>>>dictator?
>
>[Silence.]
>
>Jim has no answers. *He* knows how absurd those analogies are, but he
>says ... nothing.

Oh, I have answers all right. You just don't get to see or hear them.

>
>>>What qustions do I not answer?
>>
>>You haven't answered any of my qustions[sic], e.g., what you would
>>have done if there hadn't been computer mass storage devices
>>developed, like the ones made at StorageTek, or inline skates
>>invented.
>
>Those questions have no pertinence at all in the discussion. They are
>an exmple of Jim Blansett's google-diving and posting personal
>information that has no business at all in this discussion. They are a
>demonstration of Jim's frank admission:
>

Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they do have pertinence. If you were to
honestly answer them, I believe it would demonstrate you have a
double-standard and refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you
hold others to. Further, I don't consider what is freely, and
publicly available to be personal information. If it were truly
personal, like your SSN or car tag number, it wouldn't be so easily
accessible. Now, quit your damn baby crying.


>On 19 Oct 2005 08:56:04 -0500, Jim Blansett
><jim_blans...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>And, phil, you have no idea how hateful I can be.
>

Get over it, phil. Why, when you choose to post this line, over and
over, ad nauseum, do you not post response to the ordinal posting?
Failure to do so demonstrates that you will stoop to any level to
appear to have the superior position in a discussion.

>What you fail to realize, Jim, is that we don't want to know how
>hateful you can be.
>
>Cut it out. Stop posting questions whose only purpose is to violate my
>privacy. They have absolutely no bearing in this discussion.
>

In a public forum, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If
you believe there is, you are goofier than I thought you were.

Give orders to your dog, phil, not me. The only power you have over
me is your power to provoke my inability to stop toying with you.

>>You, also, haven't answered whether or not you have registered with
>>the National and Colorado Do Not Call registries.
>
>The national DNC registry was created to keep the million-plus
>individual businesses in the US from calling you once. There were
>already statutes in place where you could tell an individual company
>to not call you again after they had called you once. Such lists were
>problematic: they forced a homeowner to potentially recieve calls from
>tens of thousands of busiensses trying to sell to them.
>
>I see no problem with granting military recruiters an exception to the
>DNC lists -- I see no issue with each HS student potentially getting
>up to 5 calls. I recruiters call one of those students and they do not
>want any more calls, they're welcome to say so. I do not see some huge
>"harm" coming to someone from getting [a maximum of] five telephone
>calls.

This is conjecture on your part, phil. Got any facts to back up your
supposition? No? I didn't think so. Fucking hypocrite!

>
>My personal choices are really none of your business -- especially
>given your predilection to gratuitously violating privacy here. And
>there are already exceptions to the national DNC list: 503c
>organizations, politicians. I see no reaon that recruiters shouldn't
>be able to call students -- once.
>

There's a law that says, if they so choose, they can opt-out of being
called. You, phil, don't get to pick and choose which laws, already
on the books, are good ones. You, as a citizen, are charged with
obeying they laws, as they are written. If you find you can no longer
accept the laws of the land, the opt-out provision, in particular,
then why don't you petition some random federal judge to agree with
you? Don't you get it: your simply saying that you see no reason that
recruiters shouldn't be able to call students has no bearing on the
law.

>>Those are just two examples, "Rubber Boy" - there are many more.
>
>They are damn poor examples, Jim. Can't you do any better?
>
>Should I start listing some of the questions that you have failed to
>ever answer? Or are the rules somehow different for you?
>

In short, yes, they are!

You don't hesitate to attempt to point out questions you feel I
haven't answered. If you can duck-and-dodge questions, Rubber Boy, so
can I.

>--phil

.