[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: GOODBY MIKE!



In article <E18tIK.1sE@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>,
   antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) 
wrote:
>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.

What's this?!  Jay's comments are not divinely inspired?  I 
was beginning to think that he was a legend in his own mind!


References: