Re: META: Dishonest debate (was "cluster bombs")

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 07:03:15 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "RE: greatest threats to survival (was: why believe the truth?)"

    My final comment on this particular thread is that them that dishes it out
    can't take it. From what I surmise, is that there seems to be a few on this list
    who when contradicted, respond by complaining about personal attacks. Why
    raise political subjects then, or respond to them, if one sees their views as
    sacrosanct? Or at least don't whine when someone opposes your views and call it
    personal.

    On the other hand, since many global topics are by their nature, polemical.
    Interactions with radical militant, are indeed personal. As personal as an
    enhanced fission weapon detonating in DC or LA. This is a real-world worry, and
    not some fantasy. Like I said, some topics are polemical by nature. Sometimes
    one is forced to choose. Often, there is no choice.

    This list, cannot go back to being what it was in the 1990's; because the
    past is gone and the world has changed, and will change more. One may garner, a
    greater civility, at the cost of a lessened relevancy. But there is room in the
    world, for such a list or group such as this. Please be aware it will not be
    in the vanguard. Remember the word relevancy, because it will come back to
    haunt. I gar-on-tee.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 07:13:11 MDT