Guest
> You, sir <sic> are a goddamnewd idiot.
Glad you think so.
Go color.
Glad you think so.
Go color.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:06:26 PM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> I agree that Sloman hold a belief a leftist Ideology...
No, he has his own ideas. The box 'leftist' doesn't apply,
that's just an arrogant and dismissive bit of language that
you could fling at stones or trees, with equal descriptive accuracy: none.
> I agree that Sloman hold a belief a leftist Ideology...
No, he has his own ideas. The box 'leftist' doesn't apply,
that's just an arrogant and dismissive bit of language that
you could fling at stones or trees, with equal descriptive accuracy: none.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:11:33 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Basically, what Kevin was saying that I'd have to have married an Iranian atheist whose first husband was executed for the crime of having been a Muslim and becoming an atheist, before I'd know anything useful - a sublimely rational argument. Hard-line Muslim fundamentalists seem to be quite a brutal as their
Christian equivalents - Boston Puritans hanged a couple of Quakers for the crime of being Quakers around 1660.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs
Cursitor Doom imagines that persistent exposure to his silly ideas ought to persuade other people that they aren't silly.
This is just one more of his extensive collection of irrational delusions.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:07:35 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Don't piss about on what you don't know, you know nothing.
applause
You'd have thought after so many years of being told that by so many
different contributors here, the penny would have dropped by now. Sadly
not!
Basically, what Kevin was saying that I'd have to have married an Iranian atheist whose first husband was executed for the crime of having been a Muslim and becoming an atheist, before I'd know anything useful - a sublimely rational argument. Hard-line Muslim fundamentalists seem to be quite a brutal as their
Christian equivalents - Boston Puritans hanged a couple of Quakers for the crime of being Quakers around 1660.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs
Cursitor Doom imagines that persistent exposure to his silly ideas ought to persuade other people that they aren't silly.
This is just one more of his extensive collection of irrational delusions.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:qhfj90$8q5$3@dont-email.me...
<applause>
It has taken a while to really sink in the mind-set of Bill. One tries to
give some benefit of doubt, but there is truly no point in debating with
him.
For the most part, its always ad-hominem. His irrational ideology is pretty
much in the same vain as any religious fundamentalist. That is, no amount of
rational debate is useful to someone that is irrational.
Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:07:35 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Don't piss about on what you don't know, you know nothing.
<applause>
You'd have thought after so many years of being told that by so many
different contributors here, the penny would have dropped by now. Sadly
not!
It has taken a while to really sink in the mind-set of Bill. One tries to
give some benefit of doubt, but there is truly no point in debating with
him.
For the most part, its always ad-hominem. His irrational ideology is pretty
much in the same vain as any religious fundamentalist. That is, no amount of
rational debate is useful to someone that is irrational.
Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 7:01:53 AM UTC+10, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Not that Kevin can actually debate anything. Assertion he can manage.
> For the most part, its always ad-hominem.
If you post something stupid, I'll point out that you are being stupid. It's difficult to avoid the ad-hominem aspect of this. An actual ad-hominem argument would work on the basis that your argument had to be stupid because you were making it, and I don't bother going in for that, but Kevin doesn't seem to be able to grasp the distinction.
> His irrational ideology is pretty much in the same vain as any religious fundamentalist. That is, no amount of rational debate is useful to someone that is irrational.
Kevin hasn't actually demonstrated that any of the ideas that I advance are irrational. He also hasn't identified the ideology he thinks I've espoused - there isn't one - so he's just going in for the kind of broad brush mud-slinging you can expect from people who cant be bothered to think things through.
He does seem to think that there's some leftist playbook from which I'm working - some kind of Protocols of the Elders of Leftism - but he can't provide a link to it because it doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
and his books - particularly "Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750â1790" are interesting, but don't constitute any kind of ideology.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:qhfj90$8q5$3@dont-email.me...
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:07:35 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Don't piss about on what you don't know, you know nothing.
applause
You'd have thought after so many years of being told that by so many
different contributors here, the penny would have dropped by now. Sadly
not!
It has taken a while to really sink in the mind-set of Bill. One tries to
give some benefit of doubt, but there is truly no point in debating with
him.
Not that Kevin can actually debate anything. Assertion he can manage.
> For the most part, its always ad-hominem.
If you post something stupid, I'll point out that you are being stupid. It's difficult to avoid the ad-hominem aspect of this. An actual ad-hominem argument would work on the basis that your argument had to be stupid because you were making it, and I don't bother going in for that, but Kevin doesn't seem to be able to grasp the distinction.
> His irrational ideology is pretty much in the same vain as any religious fundamentalist. That is, no amount of rational debate is useful to someone that is irrational.
Kevin hasn't actually demonstrated that any of the ideas that I advance are irrational. He also hasn't identified the ideology he thinks I've espoused - there isn't one - so he's just going in for the kind of broad brush mud-slinging you can expect from people who cant be bothered to think things through.
He does seem to think that there's some leftist playbook from which I'm working - some kind of Protocols of the Elders of Leftism - but he can't provide a link to it because it doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
and his books - particularly "Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750â1790" are interesting, but don't constitute any kind of ideology.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney