"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:22:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over
16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were
not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go
defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a
pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in
short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as
serious as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I
actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

How could they be embarressed if the kid was sober and of legal age?

Hummm?



Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Ive read EVERY article on this now fortunately dead, piece of ****.

Apparently, you haven't.

Neither of the two cites you posted when you started this, claim the page
was drunk.

The page's testimony never says he was drunk.

It certainly would have been tough to keep him drunk for the entire time
they were in Portugal.

Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

The only other references, seem to stem from 3 blog posts, 2 of which were
written right after the Foley scandal, the other after Massa.

None of them have any attributions, the oldest of them was written 23 years
after the scandal and 33 years after the relationship and still got every
fact wrong.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see it
now.

Paul K. Dickman?

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:22:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go
defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in
short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious
as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

How could they be embarressed if the kid was sober and of legal age?

Hummm?



Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Ive read EVERY article on this now fortunately dead, piece of ****.

Tell us how you *really* feel.... Anyway, his constituents apparently didn't
see it that way, for many election cycles.

But this is old news - the censure was 36 years ago. The statute of limitations
ran out long ago. What have they done *lately*? That'll be a new thread.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.


Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:07:24 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:22:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go
defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in
short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious
as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

How could they be embarressed if the kid was sober and of legal age?

Hummm?



Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Ive read EVERY article on this now fortunately dead, piece of ****.

Tell us how you *really* feel.... Anyway, his constituents apparently didn't
see it that way, for many election cycles.

But this is old news - the censure was 36 years ago. The statute of limitations
ran out long ago. What have they done *lately*? That'll be a new thread.

Joe Gwinn


Good question. So, what is the West Hollywood crowd up to these days?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:03:40 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 3:05 pm, Hawke wrote:

Libel is the written defamation of character. You need to be more
careful.

Dan

No I don't. I'm not legally liable because all I did is relate what I
heard Mr. Donatelli say on the Lars Larsen radio show.

Hawke
/
/The words you used went beyond relating what you heard. You made a
/couple of statements that indicated that you believed that Graham is
/gay. Now your lawyer might convince a jury that you were not defaming
/Mr Graham, but then again he might not.
/
/ Dan

Is stating you think someone is gay defamation of character? Seems gay is
nearly equal rights with heterosexual these days, or at least on the way of
getting there. I'm not sure but what a gay group might try to accuse a
politician of defaming them if he claimed he was gay :-) Getting to be a
pretty twisted world.

RogerN

Indeed it is.

Frankly..I dont care if a person is gay or not. Ive a number of friends,
male and female that are gay.

Shrug..not their choice. Genetics at work.

However..its how they compose themselves and what they actually believe
in that determines their value to society.

Most of my gay friends are conservatives. Not all...just most.

The other couple or 3 are far leftwing extremist fringe kooks. Really.

And they call me friend for amusment..as do I call them friend for
amusement.

G

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.

You're the Gladys Kravitz of the Usenet.
Spreading rumor and innuendo where ever you go.

Paul K. Dickman

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?

That sounds suprisingly close to paedophilia.

Dont have neighbor kids close by...do you?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On 2010-04-26, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?

That sounds suprisingly close to paedophilia.

Dont have neighbor kids close by...do you?

Paul's point was that the boy was not drunk. And if it was legal, it
was a matter between consenting adults. Since 16 year olds are
secually developed, having sex with them may be illegal in some places
(for good reasons), but it is not deviant in the sense of being paraphilic.

i

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:55:58 -0500, Ignoramus24857
wrote:

On 2010-04-26, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?

That sounds suprisingly close to paedophilia.

Dont have neighbor kids close by...do you?

Paul's point was that the boy was not drunk. And if it was legal, it
was a matter between consenting adults. Since 16 year olds are
secually developed, having sex with them may be illegal in some places
(for good reasons), but it is not deviant in the sense of being paraphilic.

i

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/e...n-gerry-studds

"A. Well, we sat around and talked about abstract and general questions,
all types and descriptions, until four in the morning, drinking vodka
and cranberry juice, at which time I was told by the congressman that he
was too drunk to give me a ride home and so he said, Why don't you sleep
here? and I did."


Quite clearly he had been giving his young lovers booze. By the
testimony of one of the young lovers himself.

Was there any other questions or comments you care to make to defend the
fortunately now dead, Gary Studds?


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them
are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see
it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?


The page was 17 not 16. That is just gunners random alteration of the facts.

This is typical of gunner's dubious debating technique.
Gunner himself said the page was 17 when he started this discussion.



That sounds suprisingly close to paedophilia.

Dont have neighbor kids close by...do you?

Gunner

Now were back to mud slinging.
Again, this is typical of gunner's dubious debating technique.

Paul K. Dickman

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:04:23 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them
are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see
it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?


The page was 17 not 16. That is just gunners random alteration of the facts.

This is typical of gunner's dubious debating technique.
Gunner himself said the page was 17 when he started this discussion.

You didnt read the article very well, now did you?




That sounds suprisingly close to paedophilia.

Dont have neighbor kids close by...do you?

Gunner

Now were back to mud slinging.
Again, this is typical of gunner's dubious debating technique.

Paul K. Dickman

I notice you tried to avoid the question. And I futher notice your
intent to rape women in your previous post.

Both have been saved for forewarding to your local law enforcement
officials.

Gunner




"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:04:23 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:57:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:50:48 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Of all the references claiming that he got the page drunk, 99% of them
are
from windbags like you posting on forums.

It's put up or shut up time, Gunner.

If you have any credible evidence of a criminal act worse than letting
someone one year under the drinking age have a cosmopolitan, let's see
it
now.

Your spew and denial is once again noted with amusement.

Gunner


That's what I thought, Gunner.
You've got diddly squat.


So Comrade..you believe its ok for an adult to get a 16yr old drunk and
then **** him in the ass?


The page was 17 not 16. That is just gunners random alteration of the
facts.

This is typical of gunner's dubious debating technique.
Gunner himself said the page was 17 when he started this discussion.

You didnt read the article very well, now did you?


Which article Gunner?
You said;

Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


Neither of those articles even mentions the number sixteen.
Neither of them even mention that the page was drunk
Both of them mention the Republican Congressman caught in the same scandal,
but with a 17 yr old female page.

So, which ****es you off more. that Studds was gay or that he was a
Democrat?

Paul K. Dickman

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...


Where was the part that indicated I bought her booze, or she was drunk?

Where is the part that indicated the page was drunk?


That I seldom have sex with a woman who has had more than 2 drinks?

How many drinks did the page have?

I don't think you are a rapist, Gunner.
I imagine you are a pretty decent guy when it comes to that sort of thing.
I just think that you are full of hot air.


Ive got ethics , Dickman. It appears that you vote for people that have
no ethics when it comes to providing booze to juvenile male children for
the purpose of ****ing them in the ass.

I didn't vote for him. I didn't even know who he was til you piped up.
I read your links and saw no mention of rape or inebriation, and looked
further.
?
Ordinarily, I stay out of discussions like this.
About the time you jumped in this thread, something happened about a half
mile from my home.
Two young women, coming home from a late night celebration, were attacked
from behind by a purse snatcher with a baseball bat. One of them, a five
foot, 23 yr old exchange student from Ireland, was struck several times and
is still in critical condition.
To sneak up on someone who cannot defend themselves, and to hit them from
behind, is the single most cowardly thing I can imagine.

I see the same cowardice in spouting unsubstantiated and libelous
accusations against someone from the relative safety of that man's death.

Now, I cannot do anything to help those two women and I cannot go out and
pound the crap out of every guy who might just be coming back from a late
night softball game.

But I can take you to task for being a lying sack of ****.

Paul K. Dickman

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

Wes

PS

Winchester is jargon for out of munitions in the naval air community. Sometimes I wonder
how they come up some of the jargon. That one never make sense to me.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are buying
it.


Wes

PS

Winchester is jargon for out of munitions in the naval air community.
Sometimes I wonder
how they come up some of the jargon. That one never make sense to me.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have misremembered, that is quite
possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track like sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.


Wes

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:47:22 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .


Where was the part that indicated I bought her booze, or she was drunk?

Where is the part that indicated the page was drunk?

It indicated that Studds was drunk..and he had been providing booze to a
minor.


That I seldom have sex with a woman who has had more than 2 drinks?

How many drinks did the page have?

No idea, but it was obvious that it was illegal, if it was one or more.

I don't think you are a rapist, Gunner.

Me? Hardly.

I imagine you are a pretty decent guy when it comes to that sort of thing.
I just think that you are full of hot air.

Im still a bit apprehensive though about you stateing clearly that you
were intent on raping a woman.


Ive got ethics , Dickman. It appears that you vote for people that have
no ethics when it comes to providing booze to juvenile male children for
the purpose of ****ing them in the ass.

I didn't vote for him. I didn't even know who he was til you piped up.
I read your links and saw no mention of rape or inebriation, and looked
further.

Good, then you learned something.
?
Ordinarily, I stay out of discussions like this.

Perhaps you should continue that decision. Or grow much much thicker
hide.

About the time you jumped in this thread, something happened about a half
mile from my home.
Two young women, coming home from a late night celebration, were attacked
from behind by a purse snatcher with a baseball bat. One of them, a five
foot, 23 yr old exchange student from Ireland, was struck several times and
is still in critical condition.
To sneak up on someone who cannot defend themselves, and to hit them from
behind, is the single most cowardly thing I can imagine.

Indeed it is/was. And given that neither one was likely to be a CCW
holder...and likely both were inebriated...its a sterling example why I
never drink and live in Condition Yellow.


I see the same cowardice in spouting unsubstantiated and libelous
accusations against someone from the relative safety of that man's death.

Unstubstanciated? I posted both the links AND the sworn testimony of
the witnesses to that dead faggots investigation.

Now, I cannot do anything to help those two women and I cannot go out and
pound the crap out of every guy who might just be coming back from a late
night softball game.

You could stay sober..and provide escort. But..that is an issue..isnt
it?

But I can take you to task for being a lying sack of ****.

When you actually provide cites to an untruth Ive written, feel free.

Now that Ive provided cites to at least 4 untruths YOU have
written....perhaps you are the "lying sack of ****"?

Wear that hat proudly Dickman. Keep your shoulders back and your chin
up. After all...few people go through life being a "lying sack of ****"


Paul K. Dickman

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him
on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The
assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have
misremembered, that is quite
possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track like
sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.

Now I'm not clear on who you are claiming to be using an ad hominem
argument. I thought you were referring to me. My assertion is not ad
hominem.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 26, 8:57*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him
on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The
assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. *Maybe I have
misremembered, that is quite
possible. *Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track like
sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.

Now I'm not clear on who you are claiming to be using an ad hominem
argument. I thought you were referring to me. My assertion is not ad
hominem.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes was saying that those that oppose Graham on any political issue
and passed around the rumor that Graham is gay, are using ad hominem
tactics. If you can not argue against the ideas, then dismiss the man
as gay.

Dan

In article ,
Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have misremembered,
that is quite possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some
side track like sexual preference, I believe the argument is weak on the
way to lost.

Here is the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

The fallacy is simple: If a Nazi tells you that the sky is blue, the sky must
be some other color because Nazis are evil.

Joe Gwinn

wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes
him
on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The
assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are
buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have
misremembered, that is quite
possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track
like
sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.

Now I'm not clear on who you are claiming to be using an ad hominem
argument. I thought you were referring to me. My assertion is not ad
hominem.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes was saying that those that oppose Graham on any political issue
and passed around the rumor that Graham is gay, are using ad hominem
tactics. If you can not argue against the ideas, then dismiss the man
as gay.

Dan

My mistake. I must be getting paranoid. d8-)

Wes is quite right.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes
him
on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The
assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are
buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have
misremembered, that is quite
possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track
like
sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.

Now I'm not clear on who you are claiming to be using an ad hominem
argument. I thought you were referring to me. My assertion is not ad
hominem.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes was saying that those that oppose Graham on any political issue
and passed around the rumor that Graham is gay, are using ad hominem
tactics. If you can not argue against the ideas, then dismiss the man
as gay.

Dan

My mistake. I must be getting paranoid. d8-)

But 'they' are out to get you

Wes is quite right.

Can I frame that?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes
him
on
any political issue.

ad hominem, a sure sign one's opponents are Winchester.

You'd better look up "ad hominem," Wes, and think about it hard. The
assumed
meaning has gone beyond cockeyed on this NG, and you apparently are
buying
it.

I learned the definition as 'against the man'. Maybe I have
misremembered, that is quite
possible. Anyway, when a man's ideas are demeaned by some side track
like
sexual
preference, I believe the argument is weak on the way to lost.

Now I'm not clear on who you are claiming to be using an ad hominem
argument. I thought you were referring to me. My assertion is not ad
hominem.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes was saying that those that oppose Graham on any political issue
and passed around the rumor that Graham is gay, are using ad hominem
tactics. If you can not argue against the ideas, then dismiss the man
as gay.

Dan

My mistake. I must be getting paranoid. d8-)

But 'they' are out to get you

Wes is quite right.

Can I frame that?

As you wish. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

My mistake. I must be getting paranoid. d8-)

But 'they' are out to get you

Wes is quite right.

Was that a double entendre?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

My mistake. I must be getting paranoid. d8-)

But 'they' are out to get you

Wes is quite right.

Was that a double entendre?

Jeez, you're suspicious. g No, your initial statement was right. I
misconscrewed it.

--
Ed Huntress