On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:17:28 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:

At least there IS some leadership. If there was a Dummycrap in the
White House like say, Slick Willie, Al Gormless, or Ketchup Kerry, or
maybe Hitlery, there would be no leadership at all.

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.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:17:28 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:


At least there IS some leadership. If there was a Dummycrap in the
White House like say, Slick Willie, Al Gormless, or Ketchup Kerry, or
maybe Hitlery, there would be no leadership at all.


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? :-)

Jim

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.

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

On 29 Mar 2008 02:24:06 GMT, 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.


You mean "Hillary the Carpet Muncher" is not descriptive?

Gunner

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.

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.

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

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.

Let me try it your way then. You thundering ****ing moron. When you
namecall instead of present facts, YOU ARE HELPING THE IDIOTS YOU
DISAGREE WITH.

Clearer now? I mean, as long as you're OK with it, I guess that's fine
and yeah I can't stop you blah farking blah but, peole like you, using
the tactics of the democrats (feel, rather than think, namecall rather
than attack with substantial arguments and logic), really don't
accomplish a damn thing.
j

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:24:23 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

Let me try it your way then. You thundering ****ing moron. When you
namecall instead of present facts, YOU ARE HELPING THE IDIOTS YOU
DISAGREE WITH.

Clearer now? I mean, as long as you're OK with it, I guess that's fine
and yeah I can't stop you blah farking blah but, peole like you, using
the tactics of the democrats (feel, rather than think, namecall rather
than attack with substantial arguments and logic), really don't
accomplish a damn thing.

Pffhht. You were doing really good until you got to your description of
Democrats. Then you more or less became what you're accusing the thundering
****ing moron of doing. g

--
Ed Huntress