Re: Ad hominem? I think not.

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Fri Nov 23 2001 - 14:54:53 MST

Joe Dees wrote:

> You obviously do not understand Samantha's position; it is a messianic pacifism-at-any-cost-including-freedom-and-security position that is inflamed with the fervour of religious certainty. She therefore sees anyone and everyone who would disagree with it as dim and uncomprehending brutes; if the UNDERSTOOD her, they couldn't OF COURSE help but to AGREE with her, for it is WITHOUT QUESTION in her mind that her position is RIGHT.
> Of course, she is wrong, but she is also memetically incapable of grokking same, just like a fundis fanatic for any other absolutist position is.

That is an utter slanderous rant with no basis at all in
anything I have said or think. Anyone with any memory at all is
quite aware that my opinions change when I believe I am wrong
and have shifted more than a few times when I see evidence they
are incorrect or incomplete.

It would be more interesting to take apart why people such
at yourself choose to take absolutist condemnatory positions
against me that fly in the face of what I have said and
how I have said it so blatantly.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT