[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: