[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: GOODBY MIKE!
Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> writes:
>George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
>> A totally inappropriate and intemperate response to a restrained, factual
>> and perfectly topical contribution to the issue at hand.
>>
>> You are proving every day to be the politically-motivated Usenet nitwit
>> yourself, unable to respond to logical arguments with your own and instead
>> restricted to slavishly recycling your heroes' text ad nauseam.
>The arguments were, among other things, about
>the definition of carrying capacity.
>I posted the accepted ecological definition.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Accepted by whom exactly, when and where as THE ecological definition ?
And, apart from you not being able to prove that all ecologist consider
the presented definition as the ultimate truth, people by and large are
well within their rights not to give a stuff about a group of people
making statements.
>Thus, their arguments are simply irrelevant.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, and of course, everyone has the right to discuss it and all serious
arguments are relevant, whether you like it (them) or not.
You know, these are discussion groups, not depositories for divine
revelations.
>What's more, your opinions are irrelevant too.
>You politically-motivated Usenet nitwit you.<G>
It is well within your rights to establish yourself as the Hassan Mutlu
of the newsgroups above. Just do not be surprised if people do not fall
for the farcical <G> after a diatribe, do not take you seriously, and
transfer their opinion of you to the cause you claim to promote.
Follow-Ups:
References: