From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 03:21:39 MDT
Joe Dees
Sent: 27 May 2004 08:35 AM
That's what you would EXPECT from a loyal Democrat in an election year. He
has no trouble believing that any controverial and sensationalistic negative
contentions from people with fat book deals coming down the pike (like
Ritter or Clarke or Zinni) which are leveled against the Bush administration
are true, but a helluva lot of trouble believing the same people he believed
without question before, when, by means of their own subsequent statements,
negative contentions that had previously been leveled about the Bush
administration are admitted or proven not to be the case.
Kinda like on this board...
---- [Blunderov] It seems to me that you set too much store on the credibility of sources. The real Ariadne's thread is to concentrate on the merits, or otherwise, of a statement or argument. Are the facts true? Are the arguments cogent? Are the examples relevant? Are the conclusions justified? I know that memebots, as you call them, are immensely frustrating to attempt to reason with. All of us who have tried to convince religious people to reconsider their positions will know this. But to set out with the assumption that everyone who has a contrary position to one's own is very likely a memebot, is well, rather memebotic in it's own right. Best Regards --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 03:22:56 MDT