"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
I love it when the "conservatives" all try to outdo each other in the
race to look most sanctimonious.


They should know better than to try and compete with sanctimonious moral
relativists who preach tolerance only for their point of view.

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been edited.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of what
was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

In article 01, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of what
was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested that it's
a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to anyone with a working
understanding of the English language, but since you seem to have difficulty
with that, I'll attempt to clarify:

In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several points in
the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting a speaker, are
generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate omitted words, or to
indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious which of the two it is in this
case. If you don't know, why don't you just say so?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins

wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

...
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh?
Someone
who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them
prescribed
for severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out
searching for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since
this
gives you something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says
more about the shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the
left than anything else.

Let's see ... as long as we are indulging in shallowness and
pointing
out the failings of the guys on the right:

- Leading moralist "Book of Virtues" writer Bill Bennett has secret
gambling addiction

- Leading "Fair and Balanced" host Bill O'Reilly harasses his
coworkers
with sex phone calls and wierd "loofah" fetishes

- Leading political "moral" leader Newt Gingrich fined $300K for
ethics
violations, thrice married, served first wife with divorce papers
while
she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery

- Leading conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advocates zero
tolerance
for drug offenders, only to find he has a secret drug addiction
himself


So your point here is? That in order to advocate for improvements
in
society one must be perfect? Thus, no-one should point out any
failings
nor needs for improvement since everyone has flaws and failings?
Thus,
nothing should be wrong since someone who is in a place of authority
has
committed such acts. Or is it only OK for those on the left to
advocate
for improvements in society since to the left, morals are all
relative, so
only they have the "moral" high ground to dictate how the rest of
society
should function?

In several cases above, you have your facts wrong anyway.



- Noted "patriotic" author and commentator Ann Coulter declares "The

myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our
times."


Somewhat different tangent from the above statements. Or are you
indicating that expressing an opinion based upon historical facts
(i.e.
some of the Kremlin archives implicating many of those being pursued
by
McCarthy as sympathizers, to be kind, of the communist regime) is
somehow
the equivalent to moral weaknesses or failings?

Are you suggesting that blacklisting 'communist sympathizers'
whatever those are, is anything BUT un-American?

Unless you think that McCarthy had access to those alleged Kremlin
records, what is the point in the first place? What was McCarthy's
basis for his accusations?


- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the
attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.

Pat Robertson is one of the most obvious con artists I've ever
seen ply his trade--no better than Yuri Geller.

--

Doug Miller wrote:
...
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

...

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses
in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

....
Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

....
In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several
points in
the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting a speaker,
are
generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate omitted words, or
to
indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious which of the two it is in
this
case...

So am I so I wrote them and asked. Dunno if they'll respond, but
if they do I'll post their answer--in alt.politics.

Regardless, clearly it was intollerant religious 'fundamentalists,'
not secularists, who were responsible for the attacks on teh WTC
and Pentagon.

Ironically the term 'fundamentalist' is typically used today in
reference to those who respect anything BUT the fundamentals of
their religion.

--
Ptfffth!

FF

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
y.com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of
what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested
that it's a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to anyone
with a working understanding of the English language, but since you
seem to have difficulty with that, I'll attempt to clarify:

In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several
points in the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting a
speaker, are generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate
omitted words, or to indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious which
of the two it is in this case. If you don't know, why don't you just
say so?

Why do you keep asking if it has been edited? Obviously you are trying
to imply that it has been misrepresented by editing out some context.

In article 01, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
gy.com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses in
Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have been
omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of
what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested
that it's a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to anyone
with a working understanding of the English language, but since you
seem to have difficulty with that, I'll attempt to clarify:

In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several
points in the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting a
speaker, are generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate
omitted words, or to indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious which
of the two it is in this case. If you don't know, why don't you just
say so?

Why do you keep asking if it has been edited?

Because, as I've _already_said_twice_, the transcript contains marks that are
often used to indicate the omission of words in quoted material. Is that what
they're used for here?

Why do you keep dodging the question? If you don't know, say so.

Obviously you are trying
to imply that it has been misrepresented by editing out some context.

To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is
obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:42:55 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:


Here's what William F. Buckley had to say about (what he calls)
Falwell's "ignorant misapplication of Christian thought":

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckle...ey091801.shtml

I love it when the "conservatives" all try to outdo each other in the
race to look most sanctimonious.


Buckley is a conservative. Guys like Falwell and Limbaugh are
fascists who would do us in if they had the power to do so.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:47:25 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of what
was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested that it's
a misrepresentation. ...

You most certainly did. It's your standard response. You yourself
never provide a shred of evidence, however. It is because you do
not have any and because you don't, you will twist what is presented
to you. It's like the Bushies who avoided Nam but were going to
make mud of Kerry's volunteer service.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article 01,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
y.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
igy.com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses
in Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have
been omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of
what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested
that it's a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to
anyone with a working understanding of the English language, but
since you seem to have difficulty with that, I'll attempt to
clarify:

In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several
points in the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting
a speaker, are generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate
omitted words, or to indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious
which of the two it is in this case. If you don't know, why don't
you just say so?

Why do you keep asking if it has been edited?

Because, as I've _already_said_twice_, the transcript contains marks
that are often used to indicate the omission of words in quoted
material. Is that what they're used for here?

Why do you keep dodging the question? If you don't know, say so.

Obviously you are trying
to imply that it has been misrepresented by editing out some context.

To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is
obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.

If you want to claim that context has been edited out, then you'll have
to show that. It's not my job to do Google searches for you.

In article , GregP wrote:

Buckley is a conservative. Guys like Falwell and Limbaugh are
fascists who would do us in if they had the power to do so.

Got a project for ya, Greg.
1) Look up the dictionary definition of "fascist".
2) Explain how it applies to Falwell and Limbaugh.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article , GregP wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:47:25 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of what
was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested that it's
a misrepresentation. ...

You most certainly did. It's your standard response. You yourself
never provide a shred of evidence, however. It is because you do
not have any and because you don't, you will twist what is presented
to you. It's like the Bushies who avoided Nam but were going to
make mud of Kerry's volunteer service.

It is plain to anyone who is able to read and understand English that I made
no suggestions of any sort. I asked a question.

I'm not sure what it is you expect me to provide evidence of, because I made
no claims of anything. I asked a question.

I didn't "twist" anything. I asked a question.

And you obviously don't know the answer. That's fine. But I think that by now
it's time to admit that you don't know.

(Hint for those who have trouble telling the difference between questions and
suggestions: my last statement above *is* a suggestion.)



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article 01,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
gy.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
digy.com:

Just curious: do the ellipses in the transcript indicate pauses
in Falwell's speaking, or places where some of his words have
been omitted?

(shrug) You have a point?

Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been
edited.

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of
what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested
that it's a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to
anyone with a working understanding of the English language, but
since you seem to have difficulty with that, I'll attempt to
clarify:

In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several
points in the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting
a speaker, are generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate
omitted words, or to indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious
which of the two it is in this case. If you don't know, why don't
you just say so?

Why do you keep asking if it has been edited?

Because, as I've _already_said_twice_, the transcript contains marks
that are often used to indicate the omission of words in quoted
material. Is that what they're used for here?

Why do you keep dodging the question? If you don't know, say so.

Obviously you are trying
to imply that it has been misrepresented by editing out some context.

To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is
obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.

If you want to claim that context has been edited out, then you'll have
to show that. It's not my job to do Google searches for you.

To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is obvious
that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.

If you don't know, fine. Say so.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

If you want to claim that context has been edited out, then you'll
have to show that. It's not my job to do Google searches for you.

To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is
obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.

If you don't know, fine. Say so.

Doug, that's like the third time you've tried to insult my grasp of the
English language ... all on the pretext that you can't be bothered to do
your own Google searches. Well, hello ... I am not going to provide you
with any information to help your argument. If you are interested enough
to have the discussion, then you will just have to get sufficiently
motivated to go figure it out for yourself. I am certainly not interested
enough.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , GregP
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:47:25 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of
what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.

That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested
that it's a misrepresentation. ...

You most certainly did. It's your standard response. You yourself
never provide a shred of evidence, however. It is because you do
not have any and because you don't, you will twist what is presented
to you. It's like the Bushies who avoided Nam but were going to
make mud of Kerry's volunteer service.

It is plain to anyone who is able to read and understand English that
I made no suggestions of any sort. I asked a question.

I'm not sure what it is you expect me to provide evidence of, because
I made no claims of anything. I asked a question.

I didn't "twist" anything. I asked a question.

And you obviously don't know the answer. That's fine. But I think that
by now it's time to admit that you don't know.

(Hint for those who have trouble telling the difference between
questions and suggestions: my last statement above *is* a suggestion.)


So, Doug ... How long have you been beating your wife?