Re: --off topic Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

Note that rhetoric does not deal with truth, but it does deal in impressing
ideas upon people.  Ergo, people that wish to persuade others without
relying on the truth resort to rhetoric.  As to repeating yourself, you
accused the US military of both having perverse objectives, and of being
murders.  That is two attacks; the second attack would be the repeated
attack.  As to ignorance you are clearly ignorant of logical reasoning.  As
to your supposed 'criticism', in order for criticism to be valid it must be
a well formed argument and be logically consistent.  Otherwise your
'criticism' is likely to actually be defamation.

So do you really care about truth or do you prefer to try to verbally
force(impress) people into your point of view with your numerous personal
attacks and abuses of the context and definition?  If you care about truth,
I would be more than happy to recommend some university courses on logic.
That way you could have the tools to properly reason about truth.
Otherwise, I suggest you look up one more word; this word is 'bigot'.  Note
that I am not calling you a bigot; I just think you should know what this
word really means.

As to your red herring about Somalia, you still cite no evidence; you only
state your confidence in a book author's words.  You also accuse the
ENTIRE US military of crimes!  Surely you cannot believe that everyone in
the US military is guilty or responable for these crimes, but this is what
you claim.  Do you really want to accuse every person in the US military of
murder?

Please don't respond with any more personal attacks; they don't work on me.
As long as you do not use logically valid means to present your arguments, I
will not accept them since you do not have the tools to show that your
arguments are valid.

"tony" <tonygair@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3CB74B83.D24F1835@btinternet.com...
> "Chad R. Meiners" wrote:
> >
> > Please refrain from supporting global ignorance by relying on rhetoric
to
> > persuade people.
>
> In my bit to reduce global ignorance, I have looked up the following big
> words RELYING on the Oxford Dictionary, that you used.
>
> Rhetoric :- Art of presenting words impressively
>
> Thanks Chad. I didn't realise you were impressed.
>
> Repeated :- occurred more than once.
>
> I did not repeat myself.
>
> Ignorance :- lack of knowledge.
>
> For example not knowing the meaning of the words you write.
>
>
>
> >> Just because you believe something doesn't make it true,
> > and just because you say something over and over, also, doesn't make it
> > true.
>
> Gee thanks Grandma, can you tell me the truth now......
>
> >>  If you care about the truth, you must carefully determine the truth
> > with logically valid methods.
>
> In your post you implied that I was ignorant and now you imply I am
> lying. You are hereby strucken from my christmas card list.
>
> >>  In particular, please refrain from
> > encouraging the irrational hatred of organizations such as the US
military.
>
> Critiscism is not irrational hatred. What irrational Hatred am I
> encouraging? Does critiscism make me a Terrorist. The use and supply of
> weapons against civilians to further my ends in the world would be
> irrational hatred and terrorist.
>
> Bombing, strafing and the murder of unarmed civilian crowds in Somalia
> (The author of blackhawk down describes this in his book) is Irrational
> hatred and more. Opposing the design and production of satanic devices
> that make this possible is NOT irrational hatred, it is a logical valid
> method to oppose people who betray Humanity.