On 2 Aug 2002 at 21:16, ben wrote:
> > > > [Joe 1]
> > > > And those who empathize with dead terrorists most likely
> > > > empathized with them when they were alive; that is a wash, or a
> > > > net negative, since dead terrorists reduce the total.
> > > >
> > > > [ben 2]
> > > > sigh... so now every non-US casualty in Afghanistan was a
> > > > terrorist? Should we start murdering brown people onsight Joe?
> > > >
> > > [Joe 3]Nope, not every one, but there were many less non-terrorist
> > > deaths than the 9/112800, and their deaths, unlike thedeaths of
> > > the civilian citizens in the Twin Towers, were accidental and
> > > unintended. Or does it take a Venn Diagram to illustrate that
> > > popint for you?
> > >
> > > [ben 4]
> > >
> > > No diagram required, and I never have question the balance of the
> > > dead or the intentions that killed them. However, again you are
> > > responding to some imagined statement on my part and avoiding the
> > > real issue. You are claiming that all the non-US dead in
> > > Afghanistan were terrorists.
> > >
> [Joe 5] This, considering the above cut and pasted statement from me,
> in the > very email you responded to, is a bald faced lie.
>
> [ben 6]
> Check the archives. Concern was expressed for the Afghani dead, you
> responded with what is in [Joe 1] above. Your response assumes that
> concern for Afghani dead would only be experienced by those who
> empathize with dead terrorists. Ergo, the obvious underlying
> assumption on your part is that all the dead Afghanis specifically are
> terrorists. We know that this has not (and won't) be proven, therefore
> you are suggesting that all Afghanis are terrorists.
>
Your unwarranted assumptions regarding what I meant (as opposed to
what I clearly actually said), have made an ass of U not ME. If you are
indeed a mindreader, I would appreciate you telling me what is
presently in my pockets (and yes, i am thinking about it).
>
> [ben 4] I call, in your own words, bullus shittus on that assertion
> and hereby > > give you the opportunity to either retract or explain.
> Or at least to > > reply with an addendum that explains your feelings
> for those who > > empathize not for dead terrorists but for needlessly
> murdered > > civilians... OF ANY NATION. > >
>
> [Joe 5] I do the same, and unlike you, WITH OBVIOUS REASON. You are >
> either blind or uncomprehending of simple english to lie DIRECTLY >
> AFTER the statement that proves your lie is a lie. RETRACT OR >
> EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> [ben 6] Explained, although I didn't expect it to be neccessary. I
> will choose to not be offended by your accusation as it seems to be
> prompted by panic and despair as opposed to malice. You seem to
> conveniently forget where the conversation was every time you can't
> defend your position. Now can we get back to the simple request made
> in [ben 4] please??
>
Once again, a pitiful, pathetic, failed and futile attempt at mindreading.
As to the question in ben 4: does the phrases 'regrettably unavoidable'
mean anything to you? And, BTW, fuck your panic, and your desperate
accusation of same; you were caught in a transparent lie - plain and
simple.
>
> -ben
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT