At 12:42 PM 8/26/98 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
William H. Geiger III wrote:
Sad that I wasted this much time responding.
Why, because I challenge your PC dogma and require to to rationally justify it? We have an old saying here "If you are scared son, then say you are scared". If you are unable to rationally and objectively justify your PC dogma than just say so.
Smirk. /I'm terrified/ I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
<chortle> oh yes, an EXCELLENT justification of your 'PC beliefs' How exactly does that answer the challenge to defend your point of view? Ad hominem attacks are pretty low, even for list-members, think-ye-not? </chortle> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson@bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jennings Corollary to the Law of Selective Gravity: The chance of the bread falling with the butter side down is directly proportional to the value of the carpet. =======================================================================