On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:33:03 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:24:23 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:12:28 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:


Hey Jim,
While I agree with your point of view in general, please, consider that
namecalling cheapens your points, and by proxy, the points of those who
agree with you. With so much substance of the clinton/gore/kerry camp
to disagree with, we really don't need to resort to petty namecalling.

Those are my names for the lot. It's better, I suppoed, than the
Blowjob King, Dumb**** Gore, Useless Kerry and the Bitch, eh what? :-)


Allow me to be more clear, since polite and/or subtle appears not to
work on you. When you do what you're doing, you make everyone who
agrees with you look bad. What you are doing, is the opposite of help.
Your rhetorical tactic is not effective. Make your valid points, sure,
but when you combine them with namecalling, it gives those who might be
neutral and interested in learning and changing, automatically ignore
your argument.



I've always said, "If you don't like what I'm writing...DON'T READ IT!"
It's simple really, I won't try to stifle your right to say what you
wish if you don't try to stifle mine. Fair enough? I don't mince
words. I say what I think and say what I mean.

Jim

OK and roger that. I don't think Dave is dissing you, he's actually
trying to be supportive.

I agree with him.

Namecalling is definitely mincing words because it substitutes use of
puerile rhetoric for bothering to express what you think and mean. It
does deflect debate, if only because those who would debate would
regard it as obviously futile. It won't influence any opinion other
than to dismiss you as not having an opinion you can coherently
express.

PS: you do seem to have relevant experience if your previous posts
were true and I've no reason to think otherwise. I'd like to respect
that.