----- Original Message -----
From: "Mermaid ." <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Selective Memri
> [Jonathan Davis]Thanks for the article, but a healthy "fuck you" for the
> dig below :)
> [Mermaid]awww..Uncle Johnny wants to play...:)
> [Jonathan Davis]]You have no idea how I keep myself informed.
> [Mermaid]Do tell us. I, for one, will be most interested.
You are the one who made the claim about me ( and Joe). I invite you to
support it. I have a massive range of readings and sources of information.
All that is relevant is the quality of the arguments I present - nothing
more. What I am, what my motives are irrelevant. My sources of information
are only relevant in the context of their relationship to a claim or
argument. You have said in essence "He is wrong because he only reads one
sided propaganda". I am telling you this is rubbish.
> [Jonathan Davis]I do not 'pick up my views'.
> [Jonathan Davis]You are suggesting that Joe and I uncritically absorb the
> opinions of the organs we read (selected from a poisoned platter),
> suggesting in the process that we are idiots incapable of balanced and
> rational thinking who quasi-mindlessly push propaganda.
> [Mermaid]Yes. Exactly that except for one small point. I do not..I
> DO NOT think of you or Joe Dees as idiots incapable of balanced and
> thinking. However, I do believe that given the right exposure to all sides
> of this issue, you will be able to see many more things that you might
> missed in this current situation.
That is of course is a speculation, again something you cannot know so you
choose to claim. I claim that you are received all your information in a
digest from Hermit. See, no need for evidence. It just IS.
To assert that Joe and I uncritically absorb the opinions of the organs we
read and that those organs are biased and one sided is unsupported. In fact,
it borders on a deliberate falsehood. Can you provide reasons for this
> [Jonathan Davis]This is of course defamatory and designed to discredit us
> as to avoid having to deal with our arguments. An old but effective
> [Mermaid]Absolutely not! It is an appeal to caution and to consider the
> sources before you believe them.
No it is not. It is a claim that 1. We uncritically accept information from
biased sources and 2. propagate them. This is false and insulting. It is a
classic ad hominem. "You are wrong because you reads the Daily Worker". Do I
really need to be explaining this to anyone?
> [Mermaid]Tell me, Jonathan Davis. How can I gain your attention and hope
> that you'd see the things that are visible from where I stand if I utter
> defamatory comments about your abilities?
I don't know about your motives. All I do know is that I your comments
defame even if they are not an obvious calumny. Just to be clear I do not
mean defame in any legal sense of a tort. I mean it in the sense that your
derogation attempts to unfairly damage my reputation (he only reads
propaganda) so that you might neutralizing my influence and damage my
>Does it seem logical at all?
You are not noted for you logic. ( I am kidding) :)
> seemed that way, I hope you'll accept my word that I wouldn't want to do
> something like that.
If you say so of course I believe you. I just think then that your choice of
words were unfortunate.
> Obviously, I lose the battle and I will lose your
> willingness to listen to my pov. (This exchange proves exactly that since
> havent spoken anything about MEMRI's questionable motives)
You point of view is always welcome and accepted as is. It should be
analysed on its own merits, not on your reputation.
> [Jonathan Davis]As a fellow on this forum I expect better of you.
> [Mermaid]We are what we are, Jonathan Davis..:) Personality does not
> with subscription.
Indeed, but I have come to expect a high level of debate , understanding and
oddly enough - honour.
>And it doesnt have to...Regards to you too. I hope we can
> discuss the article on MEMRI.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT