Re: ACLU transcripts

shane wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> shane wrote:
>>
>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> shane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:56:37 +1000, shane
>>>>>> <remarcsdNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:41:58 +1000, shane
>>>>>>>> <remarcsdNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:26:45 +1000, shane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> again, you seem to think that the events in tokyo bay were
>>>>>>>>>> identical to what happened in vietnam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, never saw any embassy staff scrambling for a
helicopter
>>
>> on
>>
>>>>>>>>> the roof of the embassy building in Tokyo. Nor a tank crash
>>>>>>>>> through the gates of a little bit of a foreign country like
in
>>>>>>>>> Vietnam.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you know, i GOTTA quit getting sucked into these off topic
>>>>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat ironic as you started this particular sub-thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nope. i responded to someone who said the 2nd was meant to
>>>>
>>>> guarantee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> american freedom. did you read clyde and glen's assertions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I read Cyde's, but no post of Glen's is in the direct path
>>>>
>>>> between
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> here and the original post. This sub-thread took off from your
>>>>> response to Cyde.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What the hell does "direct path" mean, exactly? Clyde
>>>
>>> I think the word you are squeezing to get out is Cyde, ....
>>>
>>>> and I were the
>>>> first posters Bob responded to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know it will a very difficult concept for you to understand,
given
>>> your apparent limitations in this area, but bear with me and I
will
>>> endeavour to explain;
>>>
>>> I made a comment in response to Bob that said "you started this
>>> particular sub-thread."
>>>
>>> Bob responded "did you read clyde and glen's assertions?"
Apparently
>>> he has the same problem as you in correctly reading names, as he
got
>>> yours wrong as well.
>>>
>>> This brings us to my comment "Yes I read Cyde's, but no post of
>>
>> Glen's
>>
>>> is in the direct path between here and the original post." And
just
>>
>> to
>>
>>> head off the spelling flame, I wrote "Glen's" deliberately in
>>
>> response
>>
>>> to Bob's use of the name.
>>>
>>> So my point was, that I had not read any of your posts on this
>>
>> thread
>>
>>> as they were not in a direct line in the thread to what I was
>>
>> posting.
>>
>>> Starting with your post that I am here responding to, I will name
>>
>> who
>>
>>> posted the previous post that is being responded to.
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>> Shane
>>> Bob
>>> Shane
>>> Bob
>>> Shane
>>> Bob
>>> Shane
>>> Bob
>>> Shane
>>> Dick C
>>> Shane
>>> Bob
>>> Richard Forrest
>>> Bob
>>> Martin Hutton
>>> Bob
>>> Cyde Weys
>>> John Harshman
>>> Cyde Weys
>>> Alexander - the originating post titled "ACLU transcripts."
>>>
>>> HTH, but suspecting it won't.
>>>
>>> Shane
>>> The truth will set you free.
>>
>>
>> Not always, apparently. Bob replied to your claim that he had
started
>> the "sub-thread" about the "US never losing a war" by saying "i
>> responded to someone who said the 2nd was meant to guarantee
american
>> freedom." That is precisely what he was responding to, and what
both
>> "Clyde" and "Glen" and everyone else were arguing. Had his claim
>> about the US never losing a war never been challenged, it never
>> would have been a sub-thread. We've established that an original
>> post is not a "thread", and likewise, an original claim in a thread
>> does not constitute a sub-thread.
>>
>> Frankly, my view is that it was silly to challenge the claim that
the
>> US has never lost a war and create a sub-thread arguing over
subjects
>> such as Vietnam and the US civil war, since whether ever losing or
>> not is not relevant to why citizens have rights, in this particular
>> thread, the right to bear arms. And also for the reason that the US
>> is arguably, the sole superpower in the world. What has or has not
>> happened in the past with wars is not particularly relevant to
>> whether the reasons for the right to bear arms is "outdated".
>>
>
> Surprising as you may find this, I fundamentally agree, where I
> disagree is the bit about it being "silly" to respond to a
particular
> post, apparently, just because it is not on the original topic. If
> that is the case, then those who took the topic away from the
> original post about the ACLU transcripts are the main culprits.

No, just different culprits. But the subject changed completely then.
In the case of the debate over second amendment rights, it was silly
to travel down a vaguely related path of arguing about whether the US
had ever lost a war, since it has no real interest as a stand alone
topic, and is irrelevant to why US citizens have a right to bear arms.

> However this is usenet, and there are basically no rules about what
> you can respond to or not. I note that neither Bob, nor you, chided
> any of the people who pursued his claims, as off topic as they were.

Not that I am defending Bob, but all he did was to make a comment
about being sucked into a sub-thread instead of staying with the topic
at hand. He could have simply not participated, and kept to the main
subject and how his claim related to that subject. You'll be the one
that stepped in on a perceived opportunity, and chided him about the
comment, making some irrelevant claim that he had started a sub-thread
by making a claim. As you have noticed, the original post did not have
a thread, so it would be rather hard to view it as a thread or an
argument, other than in the subject header itself.







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ACLU transcripts
    ... >> shane wrote: ... >> first posters Bob responded to. ... > I made a comment in response to Bob that said "you started this ... US has never lost a war and create a sub-thread arguing over subjects ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Update from Vegas
    ... Who is this "Bob" everyone keeps referring to? ... Wei table because you have to see the shot of the match by Shane. ... Shane had a solid in the top left corner pocket and Dennis sunk it ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: SVB in CO
    ... Bob got to play Shane in the $1500 added bar box event on Saturday. ... (I was watching my friends Chris O and Chisolm play Chris Bartrum and ... racks on a bar table is scary. ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: Update from Vegas
    ... Nice going Bob. ... Enjoy the Masters next year with Bowman et al. I'm sure you'll do well there too. ... Wei table because you have to see the shot of the match by Shane. ...
    (rec.sport.billiard)
  • Re: OLTL - Gigi and Brodys flashback
    ... Shane is what, nine or ten? ... They should have told the story of Brody not being forced to go into ... In the late 1990's the U.S. was preparing for the Persian Gulf War, ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)