Re: Ad hominem? I think not.

From: Charlie Stross (
Date: Thu Nov 22 2001 - 03:20:37 MST

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 03:45:42PM -0500, you wrote:
> Charlie Stross <> Wrote:
> >I refuse to engage in a discussion with you until you sober up
> Oh No!! You're accusing me of being a drunk,

Nope, I'm accusing you of _behaving_ like a drunken ned in a bar.

That's one step down from actually _being_ drunk, insofar as the
idiot in the pub usually has a vague excuse for only using half their
brain cells.

(By the way, your sarcasm is mis-targeted.)

Seriously: why do you insist on reductionist thinking in this
situation? Far as I can tell, the evidence suggests that the terrorists
who planned and participated in September 11th all *died* on September
11th. What's left is, well, incredibly messy and difficult to get to
terms with. A bit of righteous rage is all very well, but flying off
the handle and demanding action with no well-defined goal is missing the

The old political syllogism "something must be done: this is something:
therefore this will be done" appears to be at work here, in spades.

-- Charlie

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT