PING: William Graham!

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.


Its not just the French - pretty much all of europe (and beyond) does
this.
The US is simply an odd one out.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Now that you mention it, I think Mexico has a requirement for separate
ceremonies, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article ,
"Bob Harrington" wrote:

Rob Mitchell wrote:
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society, and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got
several of these 100 million safely socked away myself. I take care
to never buy one under my own name. I buy them from individuals who
advertise them in the paper, or who sell them at garage sales or
flea markets, and I never pay with anything but cash, so they are
completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so will all of
my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor
of greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible
legal purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to
acknowledge this.

We all acknowledge that y'all wish to infringe (via "greater
restrictions") upon the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms.

I don't know that we "all" acknowledge any such thing; as for
infringing, that mightily depends on what the exact nature of the right
is in the first place.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article ,
"Bob Harrington" wrote:

Rob Mitchell wrote:
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society, and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got
several of these 100 million safely socked away myself. I take care
to never buy one under my own name. I buy them from individuals who
advertise them in the paper, or who sell them at garage sales or
flea markets, and I never pay with anything but cash, so they are
completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so will all of
my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor
of greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible
legal purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to
acknowledge this.

We all acknowledge that y'all wish to infringe (via "greater
restrictions") upon the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms.

I don't know that we "all" acknowledge any such thing; as for
infringing, that mightily depends on what the exact nature of the right
is in the first place.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article z_gkd.79813$R05.76489@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among
millions
of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the
group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important
than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your
money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making
&
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates
recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so
many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by
entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of
the
only defense criminals fear.


Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society,
and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got several of
these
100 million safely socked away myself. I take care to never buy one under
my
own name. I buy them from individuals who advertise them in the paper, or
who sell them at garage sales or flea markets, and I never pay with
anything
but cash, so they are completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and
so
will all of my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor of
greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible legal
purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to acknowledge
this.

Perhaps the majority does what you say, but my experience with other
nations, such as the UK, suggests that the state is quite capable of banning
all firearms from its citizenry.

I do not believe all firearms are banned from the entire citizenry in
the UK.

Ever heard of a "foxhunt"? I think they still have those there.

I think they still shoot the foxes in those.

This has been done before, and will be done
again in the future.

Where, & in which country, has it been done before? Certainly not the
UK to my knowledge.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article z_gkd.79813$R05.76489@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among
millions
of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the
group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important
than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your
money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making
&
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates
recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so
many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by
entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of
the
only defense criminals fear.


Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society,
and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got several of
these
100 million safely socked away myself. I take care to never buy one under
my
own name. I buy them from individuals who advertise them in the paper, or
who sell them at garage sales or flea markets, and I never pay with
anything
but cash, so they are completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and
so
will all of my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor of
greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible legal
purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to acknowledge
this.

Perhaps the majority does what you say, but my experience with other
nations, such as the UK, suggests that the state is quite capable of banning
all firearms from its citizenry.

I do not believe all firearms are banned from the entire citizenry in
the UK.

Ever heard of a "foxhunt"? I think they still have those there.

I think they still shoot the foxes in those.

This has been done before, and will be done
again in the future.

Where, & in which country, has it been done before? Certainly not the
UK to my knowledge.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

What I actually said was that I was specifically disputing your apparent
claim that the primary reason most gun control advocates recommend what
they do is to prevent accidents with firearms. While some of them use
that as their primary reason, I'm sure, the majority give the reason of
there being so many crimes committed with guns today. I also disputed
your apparent claim that most gun control advocates recommend anything
close to a complete & total ban of all types of firearms which exist
from the entire populace. Only if they were doing that, & the
government passed laws to that effect, would such as you be left
defenseless. But they aren't advocating that. That's what I'm still
waiting for you to address.

Any law that further restricts my second amendment rights, which have
already been 75% trashed, I am against. Is that what you are looking for?

No, since I already understood that part of your argument.

I still don't understand what exactly, you want me to say?

Obviously not. What I don't fathom is your comprehension problem, since
I stated it plain as day above. You don't see where I wrote "that I was
specifically disputing your apparent claim that the primary reason most
gun control advocates recommend what they do is to prevent accidents
with firearms"?

That I am
comfortable with some partial ban on gun ownership? - I am not.

I got that already too. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the
primary reason most liberals advocate gun control is not because of
accidents with firearms, but instead due to high levels of violent crime
involving firearms. I really don't know how to state that any more
clearly, William.

that I am
comfortable with the ban on concealed carry? - I am not.

Ya, I got that already too. Doesn't have a thing to do with what I keep
asking, & asking, & asking you to admit.

I carry a concealed
gun right now, and have carried one most of my adult life. I am in violation
of the law now, and have been for most of my adult life. Are you satisfied
with that?

I'm "satisfied" that that is your viewpoint, yes. What I'm unsatisfied
with is your claim, yet to be retracted, that most liberals advocate gun
control because of accidents.

You kindasorta, finally, admitted in another article (the one about the
UK) that your other claim was wrong, that most liberals want a complete
& total ban of all firearms from the entire populace.

I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun
control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high
levels of crime with guns?

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

What I actually said was that I was specifically disputing your apparent
claim that the primary reason most gun control advocates recommend what
they do is to prevent accidents with firearms. While some of them use
that as their primary reason, I'm sure, the majority give the reason of
there being so many crimes committed with guns today. I also disputed
your apparent claim that most gun control advocates recommend anything
close to a complete & total ban of all types of firearms which exist
from the entire populace. Only if they were doing that, & the
government passed laws to that effect, would such as you be left
defenseless. But they aren't advocating that. That's what I'm still
waiting for you to address.

Any law that further restricts my second amendment rights, which have
already been 75% trashed, I am against. Is that what you are looking for?

No, since I already understood that part of your argument.

I still don't understand what exactly, you want me to say?

Obviously not. What I don't fathom is your comprehension problem, since
I stated it plain as day above. You don't see where I wrote "that I was
specifically disputing your apparent claim that the primary reason most
gun control advocates recommend what they do is to prevent accidents
with firearms"?

That I am
comfortable with some partial ban on gun ownership? - I am not.

I got that already too. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the
primary reason most liberals advocate gun control is not because of
accidents with firearms, but instead due to high levels of violent crime
involving firearms. I really don't know how to state that any more
clearly, William.

that I am
comfortable with the ban on concealed carry? - I am not.

Ya, I got that already too. Doesn't have a thing to do with what I keep
asking, & asking, & asking you to admit.

I carry a concealed
gun right now, and have carried one most of my adult life. I am in violation
of the law now, and have been for most of my adult life. Are you satisfied
with that?

I'm "satisfied" that that is your viewpoint, yes. What I'm unsatisfied
with is your claim, yet to be retracted, that most liberals advocate gun
control because of accidents.

You kindasorta, finally, admitted in another article (the one about the
UK) that your other claim was wrong, that most liberals want a complete
& total ban of all firearms from the entire populace.

I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun
control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high
levels of crime with guns?

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article nfykd.260677$a85.16963@fed1read04,
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This
would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay
marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone.

I suppose they did. Within our lifetimes we will see a significant
reduction in that. It is inevitable. Why? The stunning lack of
evidence to the contrary of course, as compared to the
constantly-increasing body of evidence in support.

As a courtesy to you, Rob, I want to let you know that I have stopped
reading most of your posts simply due to the fact that you go on and on so
long...

Really now. I'm looking at my newsreader, which currently shows my
articles in this thread going back to November 5. One of my articles
shows to be in excess of 1000 lines, which I agree is too long. But of
the remainder I see only one article in excess of 500 lines, of the
others only one in excess of 400, & only 3 others in excess of 200
lines. Of the rest I see 10 which are in excess of 100 lines, but see
16 of my articles which are *under* 100 lines. And those line counts
include quotations of previously-posted texts, which in my articles
typically accounts for anywhere from 10% to 50% of the line count, so
the number of lines of newly-posted text is actually smaller.
Relatively few of my articles should present even the mildest strain to
the attention span of the average Usenet reader.

scattering your thoughts into areas I really don't care to
discuss/debate.

Apparently among those areas you don't care to discuss/debate are direct
challenges to you to support certain claims you've made, such as your
claim that Al Jazeera does not ever broadcast any dissent by Muslim
clerics against Islamic terrorism. When asked repeatedly by me to
clarify exactly how often you yourself have watched Al Jazeera, you
repeatedly failed to do so, & failed to support your claim with any
evidence at all, & in the one article in which you acknowledged my
challenge at all, you pointedly refused to provide any supportive
evidence *or* retract your claim. And not all of my challenges were
posted in my longer articles either. I repeated this challenge in
several of my *shorter* articles as well, so any excuse that your
limited attention span prevented you from getting far enough through
those articles to see the challenge will not be convincing. Yet you
demanded that *I* do exactly what you *refused* to do, which was to
quote Bush saying certain things I claimed he said, or retract. And I
*did* retract, in the *very* *first* reply I made to that article of
yours.

You are a hypocrite, Mark, pure & simple. You expect me to do exactly
the same thing, with no difference whatsoever, that you yourself utterly
refuse to do.

I have read small portions of some of your more recent
posts, but ONLY small portions.

Since most of my recent articles have been under 200 lines, you have
read...what...only one sentence in each? Your attention span lasts no
longer than that?

I am frankly tired of reading them.

I'm frankly tired of reading claims such as that Al Jazeera never
broadcasts dissent by Muslim clerics made by a poster who refuses to
support the claim or retract it, demands that I do exactly what that
same poster purposefully refuses to do himself, absurd claims that most
liberals advocate banning all firearms from the entire populace & that
they advocate gun control primarily because they want to prevent
"accidents," claims that we enjoy the right of free speech "at all
times" when we clearly don't & never have, & so forth.

I
appreciate your enthusiasm, but I just don't care to weed through your
stream-of-consciousness style of book-length posts...

ROFL! The one & only article I've posted in this thread which might
count as anything like a "book-length" post is the one which was over
1000 lines. The majority are considerably shorter, less than 30% of
that length.

with their endless
diversions and tangents.

Those "diversions and tangents" apparently including direct challenges
to you to support your own claims, challenges which you consistently
ignore.

For example... I read perhaps two paragraphs of this, your latest post.

Which was only 106 lines total, the majority of which was quotations of
previously-posted text. I only posted 7 paragraphs in the whole thing,
4 of which were only one sentence long, & 2 of those consisting of only
one line.

Your attention span is awfully short.

Don't be insulted--at least I'm tellng you so you can take a breath and find
a more willing participant.

I look for issues on Usenet to discuss. Whether another participant is
"willing" or not is less of a consideration.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article nfykd.260677$a85.16963@fed1read04,
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This
would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay
marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone.

I suppose they did. Within our lifetimes we will see a significant
reduction in that. It is inevitable. Why? The stunning lack of
evidence to the contrary of course, as compared to the
constantly-increasing body of evidence in support.

As a courtesy to you, Rob, I want to let you know that I have stopped
reading most of your posts simply due to the fact that you go on and on so
long...

Really now. I'm looking at my newsreader, which currently shows my
articles in this thread going back to November 5. One of my articles
shows to be in excess of 1000 lines, which I agree is too long. But of
the remainder I see only one article in excess of 500 lines, of the
others only one in excess of 400, & only 3 others in excess of 200
lines. Of the rest I see 10 which are in excess of 100 lines, but see
16 of my articles which are *under* 100 lines. And those line counts
include quotations of previously-posted texts, which in my articles
typically accounts for anywhere from 10% to 50% of the line count, so
the number of lines of newly-posted text is actually smaller.
Relatively few of my articles should present even the mildest strain to
the attention span of the average Usenet reader.

scattering your thoughts into areas I really don't care to
discuss/debate.

Apparently among those areas you don't care to discuss/debate are direct
challenges to you to support certain claims you've made, such as your
claim that Al Jazeera does not ever broadcast any dissent by Muslim
clerics against Islamic terrorism. When asked repeatedly by me to
clarify exactly how often you yourself have watched Al Jazeera, you
repeatedly failed to do so, & failed to support your claim with any
evidence at all, & in the one article in which you acknowledged my
challenge at all, you pointedly refused to provide any supportive
evidence *or* retract your claim. And not all of my challenges were
posted in my longer articles either. I repeated this challenge in
several of my *shorter* articles as well, so any excuse that your
limited attention span prevented you from getting far enough through
those articles to see the challenge will not be convincing. Yet you
demanded that *I* do exactly what you *refused* to do, which was to
quote Bush saying certain things I claimed he said, or retract. And I
*did* retract, in the *very* *first* reply I made to that article of
yours.

You are a hypocrite, Mark, pure & simple. You expect me to do exactly
the same thing, with no difference whatsoever, that you yourself utterly
refuse to do.

I have read small portions of some of your more recent
posts, but ONLY small portions.

Since most of my recent articles have been under 200 lines, you have
read...what...only one sentence in each? Your attention span lasts no
longer than that?

I am frankly tired of reading them.

I'm frankly tired of reading claims such as that Al Jazeera never
broadcasts dissent by Muslim clerics made by a poster who refuses to
support the claim or retract it, demands that I do exactly what that
same poster purposefully refuses to do himself, absurd claims that most
liberals advocate banning all firearms from the entire populace & that
they advocate gun control primarily because they want to prevent
"accidents," claims that we enjoy the right of free speech "at all
times" when we clearly don't & never have, & so forth.

I
appreciate your enthusiasm, but I just don't care to weed through your
stream-of-consciousness style of book-length posts...

ROFL! The one & only article I've posted in this thread which might
count as anything like a "book-length" post is the one which was over
1000 lines. The majority are considerably shorter, less than 30% of
that length.

with their endless
diversions and tangents.

Those "diversions and tangents" apparently including direct challenges
to you to support your own claims, challenges which you consistently
ignore.

For example... I read perhaps two paragraphs of this, your latest post.

Which was only 106 lines total, the majority of which was quotations of
previously-posted text. I only posted 7 paragraphs in the whole thing,
4 of which were only one sentence long, & 2 of those consisting of only
one line.

Your attention span is awfully short.

Don't be insulted--at least I'm tellng you so you can take a breath and find
a more willing participant.

I look for issues on Usenet to discuss. Whether another participant is
"willing" or not is less of a consideration.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article nfykd.260677$a85.16963@fed1read04,
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status
that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This
would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay
marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone.

I suppose they did. Within our lifetimes we will see a significant
reduction in that. It is inevitable. Why? The stunning lack of
evidence to the contrary of course, as compared to the
constantly-increasing body of evidence in support.

As a courtesy to you, Rob, I want to let you know that I have stopped
reading most of your posts simply due to the fact that you go on and on
so
long...

Really now. I'm looking at my newsreader, which currently shows my
articles in this thread going back to November 5. One of my articles
shows to be in excess of 1000 lines, which I agree is too long. But of
the remainder I see only one article in excess of 500 lines, of the
others only one in excess of 400, & only 3 others in excess of 200
lines. Of the rest I see 10 which are in excess of 100 lines, but see
16 of my articles which are *under* 100 lines. And those line counts
include quotations of previously-posted texts, which in my articles
typically accounts for anywhere from 10% to 50% of the line count, so
the number of lines of newly-posted text is actually smaller.
Relatively few of my articles should present even the mildest strain to
the attention span of the average Usenet reader.

scattering your thoughts into areas I really don't care to
discuss/debate.

Apparently among those areas you don't care to discuss/debate are direct
challenges to you to support certain claims you've made, such as your
claim that Al Jazeera does not ever broadcast any dissent by Muslim
clerics against Islamic terrorism. When asked repeatedly by me to
clarify exactly how often you yourself have watched Al Jazeera, you
repeatedly failed to do so, & failed to support your claim with any
evidence at all, & in the one article in which you acknowledged my
challenge at all, you pointedly refused to provide any supportive
evidence *or* retract your claim. And not all of my challenges were
posted in my longer articles either. I repeated this challenge in
several of my *shorter* articles as well, so any excuse that your
limited attention span prevented you from getting far enough through
those articles to see the challenge will not be convincing. Yet you
demanded that *I* do exactly what you *refused* to do, which was to
quote Bush saying certain things I claimed he said, or retract. And I
*did* retract, in the *very* *first* reply I made to that article of
yours.

You are a hypocrite, Mark, pure & simple. You expect me to do exactly
the same thing, with no difference whatsoever, that you yourself utterly
refuse to do.

I have read small portions of some of your more recent
posts, but ONLY small portions.

Since most of my recent articles have been under 200 lines, you have
read...what...only one sentence in each? Your attention span lasts no
longer than that?

I am frankly tired of reading them.

I'm frankly tired of reading claims such as that Al Jazeera never
broadcasts dissent by Muslim clerics made by a poster who refuses to
support the claim or retract it, demands that I do exactly what that
same poster purposefully refuses to do himself, absurd claims that most
liberals advocate banning all firearms from the entire populace & that
they advocate gun control primarily because they want to prevent
"accidents," claims that we enjoy the right of free speech "at all
times" when we clearly don't & never have, & so forth.

I
appreciate your enthusiasm, but I just don't care to weed through your
stream-of-consciousness style of book-length posts...

ROFL! The one & only article I've posted in this thread which might
count as anything like a "book-length" post is the one which was over
1000 lines. The majority are considerably shorter, less than 30% of
that length.

with their endless
diversions and tangents.

Those "diversions and tangents" apparently including direct challenges
to you to support your own claims, challenges which you consistently
ignore.

For example... I read perhaps two paragraphs of this, your latest post.

Which was only 106 lines total, the majority of which was quotations of
previously-posted text. I only posted 7 paragraphs in the whole thing,
4 of which were only one sentence long, & 2 of those consisting of only
one line.

Your attention span is awfully short.

Don't be insulted--at least I'm tellng you so you can take a breath and
find
a more willing participant.

I look for issues on Usenet to discuss. Whether another participant is
"willing" or not is less of a consideration.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...