"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:169cef13-18ae-4c60-9393-f90203af9ace@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 2, 2:15 pm, BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Whenever a US President or other disreputable gangster tries to dodge
a
> > question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> > it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely
simply
> > by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> > answers.
>
>> Ain't that clever?
It depends on what your definition of the word "ain't" is.
> > Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
Maybe, but it doesn't come close to Liquid Silk for slickeriness.
> > As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> > half.
Geez, too clever by half. Why does it always feel like I'm fla****ng
back to the thirties when I read your posts?
> > I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
> > out of their immediate jam.
Well, marklar, marklar, bloody marklar to you, in that case.
> > Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
What kind of embrace are they wiggling out of?
> Another thing they're fond of is requesting "cites" or references.
> Without providing any themselves.
Please cite this.
> When one has no facts to sup****t one's position, sophistry and evasion
> are all that one has left. That, and open verbal abuse and insults.
> But, TWO CAN PLAY AT THE GAME OF INSULTS!!!!
Look, all anyone wants here is to avoid another
double-digit everything high-tax Jimmy Carter
economic stagflation boom. Everything else is
gravy.
|
