Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Not at all. Meaning that they don't seem logical to me,
----------------
"Seem" doesn't count, you have to specify why and allow me to
make it self-destruct before your eyes, if I can, and I CAN!

It's real simple, Steve, and it applies to any who argue from any
ideological basis. Your ideology requires certain assumptions, as do
all ideologies. Fletch rejects those assumptions, possibly without
even definitely knowing what they are. Thus, though your logic may be
flawless based on those assumptions, your results are meaningless to
him.

You have managed never to make even one single argument
of the form: "I think this is true and why, and I think
your idea here is wrong and why.", and then deal with the
result. You don't because you sense quite correctly what
WILL HAPPEN! I will wipe the ****ing floor with you.

You're a ****ing coward, and you know you'll LOSE BIG TIME,

One cannot win an argument with an ideologist, unless on the off
chance the ideologist manages to be inconsistent. You haven't been
inconsistent.

But an ideologist cannot win an argument with someone who rejects the
assumptions necessary for the ideology to apply.

lojbab

Steve does not believe in assumptions. This much I have gleaned from his
hate.

"One seldom meets a true believer worth knowing."

Slainte,
Fletch