snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:rFmOd.3003$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
(shrug) You have a point?
Here's what William F. Buckley had to say about (what he calls) Falwell's "ignorant misapplication of Christian thought":
They should know better than to try and compete with sanctimonious moral relativists who preach tolerance only for their point of view.
Just wondering if that's a complete transcript, or if it's been edited.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:25JOd.4015$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
That's the second time you've suggested it's a misrepresentation of what was said. So I challenge you to demonstrate it. Good luck.
That's completely untrue, as is shown above. I have never suggested that it's a misrepresentation. What I wrote is clear enough to anyone with a working understanding of the English language, but since you seem to have difficulty with that, I'll attempt to clarify:
In the transcript you cited, there are ellipses ( "..." ) at several points in the quotation ascribed to Falwell. Ellipses, when quoting a speaker, are generally used for one of two purposes: to indicate omitted words, or to indicate pauses in speech. I'm just curious which of the two it is in this case. If you don't know, why don't you just say so?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
...
So am I so I wrote them and asked. Dunno if they'll respond, but if they do I'll post their answer--in alt.politics.
Regardless, clearly it was intollerant religious 'fundamentalists,' not secularists, who were responsible for the attacks on teh WTC and Pentagon.
Ironically the term 'fundamentalist' is typically used today in reference to those who respect anything BUT the fundamentals of their religion.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hX0Pd.4021$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
Why do you keep asking if it has been edited? Obviously you are trying to imply that it has been misrepresented by editing out some context.
Because, as I've _already_said_twice_, the transcript contains marks that are often used to indicate the omission of words in quoted material. Is that what they're used for here?
Why do you keep dodging the question? If you don't know, say so.
To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Buckley is a conservative. Guys like Falwell and Limbaugh are fascists who would do us in if they had the power to do so.
You most certainly did. It's your standard response. You yourself never provide a shred of evidence, however. It is because you do not have any and because you don't, you will twist what is presented to you. It's like the Bushies who avoided Nam but were going to make mud of Kerry's volunteer service.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:CHmPd.6513$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
If you want to claim that context has been edited out, then you'll have to show that. It's not my job to do Google searches for you.
Got a project for ya, Greg.
1) Look up the dictionary definition of "fascist". 2) Explain how it applies to Falwell and Limbaugh.-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
It is plain to anyone who is able to read and understand English that I made no suggestions of any sort. I asked a question.
I'm not sure what it is you expect me to provide evidence of, because I made no claims of anything. I asked a question.
I didn't "twist" anything. I asked a question.
And you obviously don't know the answer. That's fine. But I think that by now it's time to admit that you don't know.
(Hint for those who have trouble telling the difference between questions and suggestions: my last statement above *is* a suggestion.)
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
To anyone with a working understanding of the English language, it is obvious that I am *asking* if some context has been edited out.
If you don't know, fine. Say so.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:QGHPd.30052$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
Doug, that's like the third time you've tried to insult my grasp of the English language ... all on the pretext that you can't be bothered to do your own Google searches. Well, hello ... I am not going to provide you with any information to help your argument. If you are interested enough to have the discussion, then you will just have to get sufficiently motivated to go figure it out for yourself. I am certainly not interested enough.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:gEHPd.30051$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
So, Doug ... How long have you been beating your wife?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required