> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:44:58 -0600 (CST) "William S. Lear"
> <rael at zopyra.com> writes:
>
> >Lawrence has a long (by e-mail-list standards) history of blatantly
> >lying to support his argument. I have called him to task repeatedly
> >on his scurrilous lies, but he apparently continues to believe he can
> >get away with it.
>
> In his arguments with me he doesn't succumb to outright lying so much as
> misrepresenting my positions in the hopes that what I actually said will
> disappear down the Orwellian memory hole.
I would hardly describe it as "argument with you", more like preaching *at* you. You caould probably get a more reasoned argument out of a Vatican canon lawyer, and those fuckers at least admit what they are doing is religion.
I would like to thank Charles and Kelley for some useful sources, history, and commentary.
Now I'll step back and let the priests continue bashing Noam Chomsky, Alex and anyone else that actually expects people to reason with them.
> I particularly love the deliciousy twisted logic of accusing your
> opponents of being 'religious' because they refuse to accept things as
> self-evident truths.
Indeed. I think it's pretty funny actually, but then, I have a very sick sense of humour.
--
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com