[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
joekc at roadrunner.com
joekc at roadrunner.com
Sat Oct 4 10:50:37 PDT 2008
This is evidence that I'm not reading your posts very carefully, nothing more.
I'll give you $100 to have lunch with me today. If not, you set the time and place. You won't do it.
Am I supposed to act like this is not evidence that you are afraid to let folks know who you are?
Am I supposed to pretend that this is not relevant information to the issue at hand? Should I
ignore it? Why on earth would someone forgo an easy $100 and the chance of proving me wrong?
Try explaining that and maybe people will listen to you.
--
Joe Campbell
---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Campbell,
>
> Actually, you asked several questions but here is how I answered this
> particular question the first time:
>
> "I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but I'll
> take a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing when
> you infer a false conclusion from my answer?"
>
> Hopefully, this will satisfy you.
>
> Now, you have not answered my question: Did you, or did you not
> describe your "as far as I can tell" "reasoned opinion" as a "fact"?
>
> I hope your schedule is not so busy that cannot give an honest answer
> to this question because in answering it truthfully, you can begin to
> deconstruct the straw man you've been struggling with.
>
>
>
> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this as a response to my last question, so I'll
> > be more direct.
> >
> > Do you want to have lunch today or not? I'll treat. If you can't make it, I understand. You respect
> > me so why not sit down with me for lunch and we can talk this all out. If you convince me that
> > you are not either a critic of Christ Church or affiliated with Christ Church, I'll issue an apology.
> >
> > I have a busy schedule today. I need to know asap. If you can't make it, just let me know.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad argument. Some
> > > of your opinions are facts and some not and it is doubtful that you
> > > are the best judge about which is which."
> > >
> > > I noted your fallacies and you call it "silly" and "another bad
> > > argument." I wonder what the technical name for that one is.
> > >
> > > "Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine?
> > > That's not fair."
> > >
> > > I caught you equivocating, or having it both ways, with the word
> > > "fact" and when I called you on it, you ignored my question and
> > > proceeded to ask me a string of loaded questions. If this is not true,
> > > please show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, don't complain about "fair"
> > > to me.
> > >
> > > "And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a critic
> > > of Christ Church or affiliated with Christ Church, why would it bother
> > > you that someone thought that you were?"
> > >
> > > I am not the least bit upset, I am not bothered at all, and you cannot
> > > produce any evidence to the contrary. However, I can produce several
> > > posts written by you, Ms. Mix, Ms. Lund, and Mr. Hanson where you four
> > > have been extremely upset and bothered. You are projecting your traits
> > > on me.
> > >
> > > "I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you are doing
> > > a very bad job. Not nearly as bad as your case against Obama but still
> > > pretty bad. And it is silly indeed since you could prove your point
> > > easily by using your real name, or meeting me for lunch later today.
> > > I'll treat! Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of the
> > > country, that would explain a lot!"
> > >
> > > I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but I'll take
> > > a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing when you
> > > infer a false conclusion from my answer?
> > >
> > > "Anyway, if you won't use your name or meet me for lunch, I'll have to
> > > go back to trying to ignore you. Not that I'm very good at it but I'll
> > > try to be better!"
> > >
> > > You're very good at misquoting me and misrepresenting me, and you're
> > > even better at evading responsibility for your dishonest statements.
> > > But I'm struggling with all those posts that you wrote insisting that
> > > you never read a word I wrote, yet, now, suddenly and miraculously,
> > > you have the uncanny ability as a trained logician to describe the
> > > previously and until-now ignored posts as full of "fallacy after
> > > fallacy."
> > >
> > > Rather than ignoring me, I would appreciate it if you actually tried
> > > to engage me — or better yet, engage my one single point that has thus
> > > far gone unnoticed by the handful of extremely vocal Obama supporters
> > > on this list.
> > >
> > > Barrack Hussein Obama is 47 years old but 20 of his years are a
> > > complete mystery to America. In the modern history of the US the press
> > > has never given any candidate such a pass as they have given Obama,
> > > and yet none of the Obama supporters on this list appear the least bit
> > > bothered by these facts.
> > >
> > > Since I originally engaged you, I have had one question in mind: How
> > > do you account for this, Dr. Campbell?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad argument. Some of your opinions are facts
> > > > and some not and it is doubtful that you are the best judge about which is which.
> > > >
> > > > Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine? That's not fair.
> > > >
> > > > And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a critic of Christ Church or
> > > > affiliated with Christ Church, why would it bother you that someone thought that you were?
> > > >
> > > > I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you are doing a very bad job. Not nearly as
> > > > bad as your case against Obama but still pretty bad. And it is silly indeed since you could prove
> > > > your point easily by using your real name, or meeting me for lunch later today. I'll treat!
> > > > Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of the country, that would explain a lot!
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, if you won't use your name or meet me for lunch, I'll have to go back to trying to ignore
> > > > you. Not that I'm very good at it but I'll try to be better!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Joe Campbell
> > > >
> > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I read your words very carefully, because you concluded by jumping
> > > > > from "as far as I can tell" to "isn't this FACT telling?"
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I can tell you concluded by calling it a "fact." Is my
> > > > > reasoned opinion wrong, good Doctor?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I said as far as I can tell, it is a reflection of my own reasoned opinion. And I said anonymous
> > > > > > posters are either supporters or critics. Please read my words more carefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that conclusion follows with a good deal more certainty than any of your conclusions about
> > > > > > Obama, which are all -- everyone of them -- based on fallacies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What reason is there for your curious double-standard, that I need to prove my claims yet you can
> > > > > > make any reckless statement you want without a hint of real support?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And why not deny the allegation if you thought I made it and it is false. You are curious indeed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And as others have asked time and time again, what possible reason is there for you to post
> > > > > > anonymously if you are not trying to hide some affiliation? Use your real name and I'll be done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Joe Campbell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > AHA!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What evidence can Dr. Campbell produce to show that I am either a folk
> > > > > > > of Christ Church or a critic of Christ Church?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of you would do well to answer this question and do some self-examination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > What evidence is there that the five noted by Gary below are "left wing"? In fact, what they all
> > > > > > > > have in common is that they were critics of Christ Church. That is it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So the anonymous posts, as far as I can tell, are either from folks at Christ Church or from
> > > > > > > > critics of Christ Church. Does anyone have a counterexample to this and isn't this fact telling?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Joe Campbell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe that Rodger means that the names were brought up (listed) by
> > > > > > > > > myself and someone else as examples of anonymous posters. Not that those
> > > > > > > > > vision members were posting currently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Craine Kit" <kcraine at verizon.net>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:24 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I didn't get any postings by either "heridotus" or "Ford yesterday.
> > > > > > > > > > I haven't seen anything from either in quite some while. Am I
> > > > > > > > > > missing something?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kit Craine
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Chasuk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:31, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> There were about 5 listed in posts yesterday by Gary and someone
> > > > > > > > > >>> else. Two of them were Heridotus and Ford.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Ah. I would consider J.Ford more a harmless crank than a real
> > > > > > > > > >> "left-winger." The others I am unfamiliar with.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > >> http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > >> =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list