On 11/14/2010 01:09 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I'm the responder, not the initiator.
Not as much as a "responder" as a "knee-jerker" and "troll".
Nice debating technique trying to change the subject from *writing
style* to "physical appearance".
You've lost any right to criticize anyone's "debating technique" once
you tried to attack a message by bitching about irrelevant aspects such
as the "writing style" which was employed.
If you think that the use of run-on sentences is an attack on your
freedom of choice, your hat probably needs an extra layer of
tin-foil.
Another failed attempt to twist my words.
I don't see why. But then again, feel free to provide any explanation
which demonstrates how writing long sentences "belie your assertion that
we all should make our own choices".
The right to make your own choice is not in contradiction
to the right of people to use emotionally laden terms to persuade.
But they certainly are less effective.
So you are complaining because according to your opinion the message was
written to be persuasive?
Besides, try reading Samuel Pepys someday. People back then could
make sentences run on for three or four pages! Literally.
So, because Samuel Pepys wrote run-on "pages" in literal chicken
scratch (I looked it up in Wikipedia) that makes it ok for Duncan to
do it?
Your post is replete with fallacies.
The sad thing about usenet fading away is that those poor mentally
imbalanced trolls who waste their time trolling usenet newsgroups start
to migrate towards other communication media, such as web forums and
mailing lists.
Rui Maciel
_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
Pan-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
