RE: not playing so nice

>and I am shutting up for now.
>
>Daniel

That's kind of like saying "but to make a long story short..." after half an
hour of blabbering, no?
tina

>First, like our poetry discussion, where does preaching end or even begin?
>Hell, where does rhetoric end or begin? Or is it ALL rhetoric, including
>Jacques at the end of that long wonderful tradition? But again, in Omlor
>world Jim, calling some one names really doesn't matter since it is all
>"that's just me". John draws the lines where ever the hell he wants and
>thinks that's a point or something. What's a little sheep diddling to an
>Omlor? But absurdly it upsets him. Maybe John, you need your own sheep?
>With all your penchant for stickiness what is a little sleaziness between
>"that's just me" Omlor entities, isn't Ashcroft in your world?
>
>John, you herald the certainty of Omlor world with "that's just me" and
>then
>you go around accusing. Why should I expect anything else, in Omlor world
>praise and accusations are all the same, requiring rhetorical evidence is
>just more rhetoric Jim.
>
>Jim, you can say that John O. has some legitimate claims here but that
>would
>only drag him kicking and screaming into our world but that would be far
>from your sacred middle ground. Either Ashcroft is guilty of what he is
>accused of or he is not but we as others could never make that judgment
>with
>any certainty in Omlor world, any Judgment passed would be arbitrary and
>capricious. What is proof? The testimony of witnesses and evidence. Now
>to the self contained made up minds of the Omlor's, witnesses and evidence
>are the rhetoric to be used to make accusations against your enemies and
>denied when contrary to their certain unfaithfulness. Jim, you ask for
>something that John O. is incapable of producing nor recognizing, namely
>witness and evidence that exists outside of an Omlor world free of
>rhetoric.
>(Jim I just said the same thing three different ways if that helps you
>understand.)
>
>John, Omlor's have no basis for judgment yet you accuse Ashcroft. If
>Ashcroft is guilty your accusation can only stick in the world with Truth,
>and if he is Truly guilty then I will join you in judgment. I am judging
>your world John because it accuses without Truth, but if I were in Omlor
>world I couldn't judge it nor you the same way I have been characterizing
>your accusations, our if or 't'ruths are out of sync your accusations are
>nothing but attacks against my ideologies and my accusations would be the
>same, true meaningless democracy and all judgment becomes laughable or
>rather sad but then again when 't'ruth reigns it becomes just absurd if you
>have any inkling of Truth. Actually it becomes chaos because laughter,
>sadness and even absurdity mean nothing without Truth. I know I am no
>erudite continental philosopher but my simple single mind can at least see
>this and that is the point, some of us just aren't clever enough to fool
>ourselves. You seem to be intelligent and from reading your dissertation
>on
>line, most likely the most intelligent person on this list save Scottie
>(laying it on thick Scottie for that free copy of your next book) but that
>is your personal cross to bear. Take a little advice from a simple man
>with
>dirty calloused hands, quit thinking yourself into Borges style mazes. And
>my recognition of your intelligence is not flattery nor rhetoric, like all
>things be they guns, words, muscles, or brains it can be a wonderful tool
>but it can wreak an awful lot of havoc.
>
>Jim, NOW call me a preacher, and I am shutting up for now.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>... I really don't see too many people preaching on these boards. Daniel
>almost does, but honestly I have a hard time making out what he says
>sometimes too.
>Jim
>
>However, making accusations of bigotry in a public official should be
>something that's self evident, once the relevant proof has been offered.
>It's also immediately relevant to everyone who is a US citizen. If this
>guy
>really is a flaming bigot and is in a nationally prominent public office,
>we
>should be calling for his resignation. There shouldn't be any question
>about that.
>
>I'm only speaking, of course, from the point of view of the bland civic
>morality that passes around US society as our ethical lingua franca. It
>seems like the easiest middle ground to establish in a discussion like
>this.
>
>
>Anyway, I know some evidence about Ashcroft is out there. I've heard the
>stories. I think there's one about a judge in a state he used to govern.
>And another about a study conducted of the US judicial system that
>concluded
>there's no racism in it. I'm pretty sure you have too...just a little bit
>of web browsing should pull up the news articles. I'm curious why you
>don't
>bother. Very little effort.
>
>Jim
>
>Omlor@aol.com <mailto:Omlor@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Luke writes:
>
>"...if you're going to call a person "sleazy" and a "bigot," you'd better
>damn well prove it..."
>
>But I have faith.
>
>Man, you call someone the only begotten son of an invisible god and you
>don't have to prove any of it. But you call them a sleazy sheep-fucker and
>suddenly faith isn't good enough.
>
>Oh, well...
>
>--John (on the road somewhere in Central Florida)
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 7 21:45:47 2003