[lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill

[Michael Dawson]

> One of my criteria is that I will not debate with anyone who ascribes
> motives to others in the debate. Those subject to that fatal error
> divide roughly into two groups. One of the groups (the majority) only
> commit this error some of the time; other times they respond to
> arguments rather than people.
> 
> Others simply do not know how to carry on a discussion without analyzing
> the motives of their opponents. These people belong in the category of
> those who are companions of Bertran de Born. I don't have time just now
> to look up which Canto of Dante's de Born occupies.
> 
> Carrol
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

What gives?  You've made this claim 100 times, but you yourself violate it
almost daily, as others have also pointed out 100 times.

Beyond that, you're also rather thickheaded to even say this dreck,
especially being somebody with English lit credentials.  Which two people
have ever exchanged differing opinions on any topic without paying attention
to the opponent's motives?  Everybody who's spent 5 serious minutes on logic
knows that.  Why don't you?

And your attempt to tie this issue to Dante rings pedantically sophomoric,
and simply off-topic.  It's like a computer person who constantly tries to
relate everything to chip architecture.

Once again, I'm grateful I was not stuck under you as an undergraduate
student.  What a whirling dervish of horse feathers.