Lets Stop George Bush before he Destroys the Whole Planet Earth.

[Rich]

it was hard for me to keep my mouth shut

It's full of verbal diarrhea anyway, even at the best of times

 

[Ron_dK]

Oh... kinda the same. It was just that after the previous post it was hard for me to keep my mouth shut - so I zippered it...

Yeah, good tactical move, since Brian made a valid statement, which could only be answered by some british ?

 

[KenHigg]

It's full of verbal diarrhea anyway, even at the best of times

That's not very nice Rich

 

[KenHigg]

You questioned it emptyhead

Braindead and emptyhead duking it out....

 

[ColinEssex]

how do I know which way you meant it...

It seems you don't know much these days. You no nothing of Coca Cola Z versus diet Coke, and being rather acid in your replies to a civilised question - you seem to have developed a nasty streak by calling people names. Yet you profess to know how my blood pressure may (or may not) fluctuate?

Col

 

[KenHigg]

It seems you don't know much these days. You no nothing of Coca Cola Z versus diet Coke, and being rather acid in your replies to a civilised question - you seem to have developed a nasty streak by calling people names. Yet you profess to know how my blood pressure may (or may not) fluctuate?

Col

Are we speaking again?

 

[ColinEssex]

Are we speaking again?

My previous post was directed at you, if thats what you mean.

Col

 

[KenHigg]

My previous post was directed at you, if thats what you mean.

Col

How'd I get you in such a twist? We usally have it out and come out shaking hands. Sorry if I went overboard somewhere...

 

[Brianwarnock]

I don't know why I bother to post on the cooler, Rich makes a comment which when challenged to elaborate he merely ducks the issue then gets abusive, Col seems to be holding a grudge, and , well I think I'll retire to the garden.

Brian

 

[Kraj]

Seriously. I'm for witty banter and verbal sparring (not that those terms actually apply to Rich) as much as the next guy. It would be nice, though, if we could hold a conversation that doesn't end up like that once in a while.

 

[ColinEssex]

It would be nice, though, if we could hold a conversation that doesn't end up like that once in a while.

Ok, lets think up a subject. How about mortgages?


Brian - maybe I need to retire too.

Life is like a pubic hair on a toilet seat, sometimes you get pissed off

Col

 

[dan-cat]

There you go, the first thing Americans do when anybody dares to criticise them is to brand them anti American.

Rich, you've been told over and over that argumentum ad hominem is not a valid argument.

You can't use the alleged faulty characteristics of your opponent as an argument against his case. Look at it this way:

Y = presumption on opponent's character

1) A says X = true
2) A is American thus Y = true
3) x = false because y = true
4) Y is true because A says X = true when it was false

The argument is completely circular and bad.

If you would stop attributing posters with poor character traits then you would stop receiving so much flak.

 

[Kraj]

Ok, lets think up a subject. How about mortgages?

Pardon my skepticism, but at this point I doubt a topic exists that wouldn't devolve into the usual crap within the first page. It's not the topic that's the problem, it's the participants.

 

[ColinEssex]

Daniel - a glance through posts will show that on many occasions both Rich and I have been branded "anti-American" just because we comment on something the USA posters object to or disbelieve.

It is perfectly true that if an American poster disagrees then the other poster is labelled anti-American. Probobly due to paranoia I suspect - I'm guessing because I am not an expert in this field - Ken may know, he can do BP from thousands of miles away.

Your ABC XYZ stuff goes out the window if an American (or America) is critisised.

Col

 

[KenHigg]

Life is like a pubic hair on a toilet seat, sometimes you get pissed off

Col

 

[KenHigg]

- Ken may know, he can do BP from thousands of miles away. Col

And your's appears to be getting back to an acceptable level

 

[ColinEssex]

Pardon my skepticism, but at this point I doubt a topic exists that wouldn't devolve into the usual crap within the first page. It's not the topic that's the problem, it's the participants.

Oh sorry for trying to start a sensible discussion. forget it matey

We re-negotiated ours yesterday and I merely wanted to see what others felt about their rates / companies etc.

skepticism? (sp?)


Col

 

[dan-cat]

Daniel - a glance through posts will show that on many occasions both Rich and I have been branded "anti-American" just because we comment on something the USA posters object to or disbelieve.

I completely agree but in the end this doesn't matter. You still can't wield it as a valid argument because it attacks the opponent's character.

The argument that Rich is 'anti-American' is not invalid because he has been called that before by Americans. It is invalid because it is not true.

Why can one not argue that Rich is 'anti-American' because he seems to have no other agenda in the 'cooler than making negative remarks about America? Is that not a valid argument? What ratio of non-negative USA remarks against negative USA remarks do we have to achieve to prove the point?

 

[dan-cat]

It is perfectly true that if an American poster disagrees then the other poster is labelled anti-American.

Oh by the way this is completely false. Sometimes this occurs, but mostly it does not.

 

[ColinEssex]

Why can one not argue that Rich is 'anti-American' because he seems to have no other agenda in the 'cooler than making negative remarks about America?

There are many positive things and worthwhile things about America.

I'm stumped for a moment but I'll ponder it overnight.

How about. . . . . . . no, no, thats not one. . . . . . .

leave it with me

Col