Re: Lennon was bad at making choices in life

poisoned rose wrote:
> sixtiesgen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > Sure. And your posting history is exactly what makes your
> > > whitewashing "Who, me? Broadly attacking?" denials so ridiculous.
> >
> > Go find 'em...I dare you.
>
> Oh, come ON. This is ludicrous. A huge percentage of your
> political/ideological posts include some element of snorting at
> anyone on Earth who feels otherwise. And I've given you every
> opportunity in recent days to say you believe opposite political
> views can be credible, intelligent and informed, and you tellingly
> avoid doing so every time.
>
> > Why not
> > > simply say, "I'm one of the scant people on Earth who has all the
> > > answers.
> >
> > I would never say that because it isn't true.
>
> Oh, you mean because the Green Party has quite a few members? Or
> because commondreams.org has a decent hit count?
>
> > ..the others are living in the dark.
> >
> > what others? everybody?
>
> I guess I'll have to start pointing out your blanket attacks, on a
> post-by-post basis. Seems unnecessary, but I wouldn't have
> expected you to be in such deadpan denial about your posting
> tactics.
>
> > ..I know a legitimate
> > > political forum would eat me and my one-dimensional views
> > > alive.
> >
> > I have participated in other "political forums", and have done quite
> > well for myself, thank you.
>
> Oh, you mean like your self-created "1960s" kingdom which has only
> one other active member? Yeah, you're really cleaning up over
> there.
>
> Try launching some of your radical-malcontent threads in, say,
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.gw-bush or alt.politics.bush
> sometime, if you're so confident. See how that goes.
>
> > I'm not self-righteous. I tell it like it is.
>
> This self-contradiction could *not* be funnier.
>
> > So, your
> > > counterargument is that you don't "attack" millions, but instead,
> > > only "criticize" them from a presumed perch of superiority?
> >
> > Gee, another "do you still beat your wife" formed assumption. When are
> > you gonna stop that?
>
> Well, then clarify your position. Since groups like "Bush
> supporters," "people who don't have a rosy view of '60s hippies,"
> "people swayed by mainstream media," "people who are
> materialistic," etc. are indisputably in the millions, you can't
> argue with the numbers. So...what is your counterargument? All
> I've been able to extract from your feeble doubletalk is that you
> believe I'm unfair in calling your posts "attacks" when they're
> merely "criticisms." Correct? *Clarify*.
>
> > Do I have this right?
> >
> > There you go again, making an assumption
>
> Asking if I have something right constitutes an *assumption*? Make
> sense, please.
>
> > > you writing off the bulk of the
> > > American population as naive, complacent and brainwashed is never
> > > going to come off as mere tsk-tsk "criticism."
> >
> > Again, starting off with an assumption of something that I do, which I
> > don't.
>
> I think I'll just repaste what I wrote several days ago, since you
> still haven't come *close* to offering a rebuttal:
> ----
> How many people support Bush? How many of them are Lennon fans (a
> combination of interests which you have ruled totally untenable)?
> How many people vote Republican or Democratic, without exploring
> third-party candidates? How many people go to convenience stores
> to buy trivial items like beef jerky and Leggs? How many people
> don't give enough credit to the '60s generation? How many people
> work for or support major corporations? How many people care too
> much about money and possessions? How many people are brainwashed
> pawns of the mainstream media? How many people don't object enough
> to TV commercials which use old hit songs?
>
> All of these are issues you've griped about. Repeatedly, in most
> cases. "Millions" is not a hyperbole at *all*. Attacks on enormous
> swaths of the nation's population are wholly routine for you. How
> can you possibly deny this with a straight face?
> ----
> On second thought, I'll post the below. A response you posted to
> another newsgroup, within FOUR HOURS of this denial.
>
> Someone else:
> > All this BS will STOP dead in its tracks if/when the USA has another
> > terrorist attack!
> > Stop the wiretaps and the "LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES"
> > will take over and the terrorist will have freedom to do
> > anything they want.
>
> You:
> "Ah, spoken like one of the brainwashed."
>
> How can you have so little intellectual integrity that you label a
> large mass of people "brainwashed" in practically the same breath
> that you deny ever doing so??
> ----
> Here's another nice example, which easily popped to the surface:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/65874fdedd0ec5
> 23
>
> Here, you *explicitly* sneer at the "50 million brainwashed
> lemmings" who follow the Fox News Channel.
>
> You never attack millions of people though, right?
>
> Groan. Get. Real.

Listen to yourself, man, in your rant above. Basically, what you are
saying is that I have no right to characterize more than one person
sharing the same view. You only want me to criticize the idea....well,
well, well, my poor little naive Rose...one can criticize ideas..but
when groups of people embrace them, when groups of people implement
them, and groups of people are unfairly affected by them,
well...welcome to the real world PR...the real world where most normal
rationale human beings will point out to groups of people that they
might be/are operating under a belief system based on
prejudice...maybe...ignorance...maybe, or even sheer malice...maybe.

You claim that all of these groups are in the millions. Have you been
consulting the 2000 census?

.