---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:48:59 -0400 Subject: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star Wars is Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it is, by implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the Films, Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. 3) Either you have created a false dilemna with the Cerasi/Sansweet quote ( in which case things can be less than 100% real and still admissable) or you must eliminate the Rostoni quote. In either case your theory falls apart. In the first you have used faulty logic and thus your interpretation of the quote is wrong while in the second you are eliminating data which means that your theory is inferior to ours which incorporates all the data. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:02:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in message news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star Wars is > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it is, by > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the Films, > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not contradict the statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as very accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions which prove the rule. > 3) Either you have created a false dilemna with the Cerasi/Sansweet quote > ( in which case things can be less than 100% real and still admissable) or > you must eliminate the Rostoni quote. In either case your theory falls > apart. In the first you have used faulty logic and thus your interpretation > of the quote is wrong while in the second you are eliminating data which > means that your theory is inferior to ours which incorporates all the data. Nope. Nice try, but I'd already addressed this sort of claim before the debate, within the debate, and since the debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:05:45 +0300 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- > Nope. Nice try, but I'd already addressed this sort of claim before the > debate, within the debate, and since the debate. Yeah and I'm Emperor Palpatine ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:13:45 +1000 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: <3db73b38$0$23171$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:xpvt9.217$k46.8066@read2.inet.fi... > > Nope. Nice try, but I'd already addressed this sort of claim before the > > debate, within the debate, and since the debate. > > Yeah and I'm Emperor Palpatine > *Throws HDS down a shaft* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 24 Oct 2002 02:26:34 GMT Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in news:3db73b38$0 $23171$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au: > > "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message > news:xpvt9.217$k46.8066@read2.inet.fi... >> > Nope. Nice try, but I'd already addressed this sort of claim before > the >> > debate, within the debate, and since the debate. >> >> Yeah and I'm Emperor Palpatine >> > *Throws HDS down a shaft* > That's not enough to permanently kill him. -- Phong Nguyen | pnguyen7_at+mail-usf=eduspam | AIM: JediPhong "There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:20:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star Wars is > > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it is, by > > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the Films, > > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. > > On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not contradict the > statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as very > accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions which > prove the rule. He doesn't say they are exceptions that prove the rule..he states they are valid (reasonably acurate) sources. In other words you cannot claim that "Only The Real Story or inadmissable" is a valid choice because we have proof positive that this is not the case. In other words "Real Story" = "Only The Films" /= "All of SW" > > 3) Either you have created a false dilemna with the Cerasi/Sansweet quote > > ( in which case things can be less than 100% real and still admissable) or > > you must eliminate the Rostoni quote. In either case your theory falls > > apart. In the first you have used faulty logic and thus your > interpretation > > of the quote is wrong while in the second you are eliminating data which > > means that your theory is inferior to ours which incorporates all the > data. > > Nope. Nice try, but I'd already addressed this sort of claim before the > debate, within the debate, and since the debate. > You haven't shown that Cerasi highlited them as exceptions that prove the rule, he only stated that they are also valid source. It is your INTERPRETATION that he is calling them exceptions that prove the rule, and in that case you are still forced to render the "vast history" quote worthless along with "quasi canon" (I'm sorry you marginalize them but its the same thing). Furthermore it is only your interpretation which creates this dilemna and the dilemna conflicts with statements such as "quasi-canon" and "vast history." You have constructed a house of cards that depends on your interpretations of quotes to overrule quotes that you can't find a way to interpret favorably. That's intelletually dishonest and it creates a theory which is scientifically inferior to ours which incorporates all the available data. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:29:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in message news:ap73po$s6d5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star Wars > is > > > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it is, > by > > > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > > > > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the Films, > > > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. > > > > On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not contradict the > > statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as very > > accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions which > > prove the rule. > > He doesn't say they are exceptions that prove the rule Nor did I say that, moron. > ..he states they are valid (reasonably acurate) sources. "very accurate depictions", moron. > In other words you cannot claim that "Only The Real Story or > inadmissable" is a valid choice Yes, I can, because the Canon is not a Parallel Universe, moron. > because we have proof positive that this is not the case. Previously addressed, previously ignored. Moron. > In other words "Real Story" = "Only The Films" /= "All of SW" Incorrect, moron. You see, moron, the Canon is a very accurate depiction, moron, but not the real thing. Moron. > You haven't shown that Cerasi highlited them as exceptions that prove the > rule, Oh, yes, damn that logic. Moron. > It is your INTERPRETATION Oh, "blah blah blah, words have no meaning, blah blah blah." I've heard that stupid crap before, moron, and I will not accept it. Do you understand what these words mean, moron? How? Have you, in spite of your status as a moron, managed to grasp that I think you're a moron? How did you accomplish this? How could you possibly have reached this knowledge? Could it have been something to do with (gasp!) the *meanings* of words? No, perish the thought! > in that case you are still forced to render the "vast history" quote > worthless A vast history with many offshoots, variations, and tangents? What in the name of hell did you expect to get out of that quote, moron? > Furthermore it is only your interpretation which creates this dilemna > and the dilemna conflicts with statements such as "quasi-canon" > and "vast history." I know . . . damn words and their dirty little meanings! Moron. And how *dare* I put Lucas at the top of the food chain! What wickedness! What horror! Oh, the humanity! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:44:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:ZXCdnQZ1J9vQMiqgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > news:ap73po$s6d5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > > news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star > Wars > > is > > > > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it > is, > > by > > > > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > > > > > > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the Films, > > > > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. > > > > > > On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not contradict > the > > > statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as very > > > accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions > which > > > prove the rule. > > > > He doesn't say they are exceptions that prove the rule > > Nor did I say that, moron. How can you say that when not 1 line above you say"'He has specifically mentioned the exceptions which prove the rule." Are you trying to claim that doesn't mean what it says? > > ..he states they are valid (reasonably acurate) sources. > > "very accurate depictions", moron. Nitpick, he states they are valid sources and the fact that I don't qutoe him means nothing other than that you are an anal retentive ass. > > In other words you cannot claim that "Only The Real Story or > > inadmissable" is a valid choice > > Yes, I can, because the Canon is not a Parallel Universe, moron. Wrong, Lucas states that his world = films and Cerasi states only the films = The Real Story of SW. In other words everything which is NOT the films is part of that "parallel universe" and is not the "real story." Read the quote fool. > > because we have proof positive that this is not the case. > > Previously addressed, previously ignored. Moron. Failure to actually address the point noted, concession accepted. > > In other words "Real Story" = "Only The Films" /= "All of SW" > > Incorrect, moron. You see, moron, the Canon is a very accurate depiction, > moron, but not the real thing. Moron. Which MEANS that it is an admissabel source even if it is not "the real story," which MEANS that it is a false dilemna to claim that since the EU /= Real Story that it is not admissable. Thank you for proving my point once more. > > You haven't shown that Cerasi highlited them as exceptions that prove the > > rule, > > Oh, yes, damn that logic. Moron. Lack of any argument noted, concession accepted. > > It is your INTERPRETATION > > > in that case you are still forced to render the "vast history" quote > > worthless > > A vast history with many offshoots, variations, and tangents? What in the > name of hell did you expect to get out of that quote, moron? 'A' is singular thus there is only one history which, with the word together, incorporates all the SW material. Try understanding english next time. > > Furthermore it is only your interpretation which creates this dilemna > > and the dilemna conflicts with statements such as "quasi-canon" > > and "vast history." > > I know . . . damn words and their dirty little meanings! Moron. Yup those multiple meanings when only your decision about which meaning is paramount is allowed. > And how *dare* I put Lucas at the top of the food chain! What wickedness! > What horror! Oh, the humanity! > Lucas is the top of the food chain, you just keep pretending that your interpretation of his quote: 1) Overrules otehr quotes 2) Doesn't create a false dilemna in conjunction with the Rostoni quote. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:57:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in message news:ap9m1o$sm02d$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:ZXCdnQZ1J9vQMiqgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > news:ap73po$s6d5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > > > news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star > > Wars > > > is > > > > > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story it > > is, > > > by > > > > > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > > > > > > > > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the > Films, > > > > > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. > > > > > > > > On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not contradict > > the > > > > statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as very > > > > accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions > > which > > > > prove the rule. > > > > > > He doesn't say they are exceptions that prove the rule > > > > Nor did I say that, moron. > > How can you say that when not 1 line above you say"'He has specifically > mentioned the exceptions which prove the rule." Are you trying to claim that > doesn't mean what it says? Wow, you're stupid. Thank you for demonstrating your problem . . . you can't understand what you read. > > > ..he states they are valid (reasonably acurate) sources. > > > > "very accurate depictions", moron. > > Nitpick, he states they are valid sources and the fact that I don't qutoe > him means nothing other than that you are an anal retentive ass. Given your lack of reading comprehension and general dishonesty, you'd have attempted to use your modified version improperly. It is not a nitpick to keep the reins on your lies. > > > In other words you cannot claim that "Only The Real Story or > > > inadmissable" is a valid choice > > > > Yes, I can, because the Canon is not a Parallel Universe, moron. > > Wrong, Lucas states that his world = films and Cerasi states only the films > = The Real Story of SW. In other words everything which is NOT the films is > part of that "parallel universe" and is not the "real story." You moron. Lucas specifically defines the parallel universe as "the licensing world of books, games, and comic books" . . . you cannot go redefining it to include the known canon of scripts, radio plays, and film novelisations based on your own wishful thinking, especially when members of that list have been referred to as very accurate depictions (and are thus still acknowledged). > Read the quote fool. I seem to be the only one of us capable of doing so. > > > because we have proof positive that this is not the case. > > > > Previously addressed, previously ignored. Moron. > > Failure to actually address the point noted, concession accepted. I've already got yours, because you couldn't respond to my prior arguments. > > > In other words "Real Story" = "Only The Films" /= "All of SW" > > > > Incorrect, moron. You see, moron, the Canon is a very accurate > depiction, > > moron, but not the real thing. Moron. > > Which MEANS that it is an admissabel source even if it is not "the real > story," No, moron, it means that they are very accurate depictions of the real story, moron. That doesn't mean they aren't telling the real story, moron, but it does mean that they are very accurate re-tellings of the real story. Moron. > which MEANS that it is a false dilemna to claim that since the EU /= > Real Story that it is not admissable. No, moron, because the EU is not telling the real story. > > > in that case you are still forced to render the "vast history" quote > > > worthless > > > > A vast history with many offshoots, variations, and tangents? What in the > > name of hell did you expect to get out of that quote, moron? > > 'A' is singular thus there is only one history But it is not *the* history. Moron. > Try understanding english next time. You're hardly in a position to make that request, given your utter inability to understand it. > > > Furthermore it is only your interpretation which creates this dilemna > > > and the dilemna conflicts with statements such as "quasi-canon" > > > and "vast history." > > > > I know . . . damn words and their dirty little meanings! Moron. > > Yup those multiple meanings when only your decision about which meaning is > paramount is allowed. Oh, of course . . . because you think you can take the term "parallel universe", remove "universe", find one part of *one* of *thirteen* definitions of parallel that might help your cause ("interdependent"), re-apply "universe", and claim that "parallel universe" has a new meaning as a result. This you do in spite of the fact that it's (a) insane to try in the first place, (b) ignores the context of Lucas's use of the term ("outside", "other", etc.), and (c) ignores the fact that there is no dependence on the EU by the Canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:40:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:ZvKdnbUBZIRb9CSgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > news:ap9m1o$sm02d$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:ZXCdnQZ1J9vQMiqgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > > news:ap73po$s6d5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > > > > news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > 1) You use the Cerasi/Sansweet quote about "The Real Story of Star > > > Wars > > > > is > > > > > > Only the Films" to state that if something is not the real story > it > > > is, > > > > by > > > > > > implication, unreal and therefore inadmissable. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) This directly contradicts SW:I #23 where it states that the > > Films, > > > > > > Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Screenplays are all canon. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary . . . the inclusion of those works does not > contradict > > > the > > > > > statements of Cerasi, who refers to them within his statement as > very > > > > > accurate depictions. He has specifically mentioned the exceptions > > > which > > > > > prove the rule. > > > > > > > > He doesn't say they are exceptions that prove the rule > > > > > > Nor did I say that, moron. > > > > How can you say that when not 1 line above you say"'He has specifically > > mentioned the exceptions which prove the rule." Are you trying to claim > that > > doesn't mean what it says? > > Wow, you're stupid. Thank you for demonstrating your problem . . . you > can't understand what you read. I'd address this but since you don't really make any point its kinda hard for me to do anything but point at you and laugh. > > > > ..he states they are valid (reasonably acurate) sources. > > > > > > "very accurate depictions", moron. > > > > Nitpick, he states they are valid sources and the fact that I don't qutoe > > him means nothing other than that you are an anal retentive ass. > > Given your lack of reading comprehension and general dishonesty, you'd have > attempted to use your modified version improperly. It is not a nitpick to > keep the reins on your lies. You'll perhaps explain the difference between "reasonably accurate" and "very accurate" then. That's the only difference between what I said and what the quote. Perhaps you've heard of another term out theree...its called PARAPHRASING. Try it sometime you anal retentive ass monkey. > > > > In other words you cannot claim that "Only The Real Story or > > > > inadmissable" is a valid choice > > > > > > Yes, I can, because the Canon is not a Parallel Universe, moron. > > > > Wrong, Lucas states that his world = films and Cerasi states only the > films > > = The Real Story of SW. In other words everything which is NOT the films > is > > part of that "parallel universe" and is not the "real story." > > You moron. Lucas specifically defines the parallel universe as "the > licensing world of books, games, and comic books" . . . you cannot go > redefining it to include the known canon of scripts, radio plays, and film > novelisations based on your own wishful thinking, especially when members of > that list have been referred to as very accurate depictions (and are thus > still acknowledged). Then there is a logical contradiction between the Only Films = Real Story and Lucas's quote unless you accept our interpretation. Your interpretation has created a contradiction between the quotes...period. > > Read the quote fool. > > I seem to be the only one of us capable of doing so. Oh so good, now try reading them and recognizing the contradiction you've created with your interpretation of Cerasi's quote. > > > > because we have proof positive that this is not the case. > > > > > > Previously addressed, previously ignored. Moron. > > > > Failure to actually address the point noted, concession accepted. > > I've already got yours, because you couldn't respond to my prior arguments. Oh really? That's funny because we're still here talking and you still haven't proved a damn thing yet, other than an inability to recognize contradictions betweenyour interpretations of two quotes. > > > > In other words "Real Story" = "Only The Films" /= "All of SW" > > > > > > Incorrect, moron. You see, moron, the Canon is a very accurate > > depiction, > > > moron, but not the real thing. Moron. > > > > Which MEANS that it is an admissabel source even if it is not "the real > > story," > > No, moron, it means that they are very accurate depictions of the real > story, moron. That doesn't mean they aren't telling the real story, moron, > but it does mean that they are very accurate re-tellings of the real story. > Moron. Fine, and the EU is a foggy (thus less accurate) depiction of the real story. Thus the EU is included by the Cerasi/Sansweet quote which jives with our interpretaiton of the Lucas quote...moron. > > which MEANS that it is a false dilemna to claim that since the EU /= > > Real Story that it is not admissable. > > No, moron, because the EU is not telling the real story. Yes it is, just through a "foggy window." Please try again. > > > > in that case you are still forced to render the "vast history" quote > > > > worthless > > > > > > A vast history with many offshoots, variations, and tangents? What in > the > > > name of hell did you expect to get out of that quote, moron? > > > > 'A' is singular thus there is only one history > > But it is not *the* history. Moron. There is only one history and it intrudes into the real story thus it is the real story. Try workign with all the evidence next time. > > Try understanding english next time. > > You're hardly in a position to make that request, given your utter inability > to understand it. "Its not my fault I completely failed to understand what "..." represents its Cmdrwilkens'" Yup you surwe udnerstand the rules of the english language considering you didn't even know what a fucking paragraph is. > > > > Furthermore it is only your interpretation which creates this dilemna > > > > and the dilemna conflicts with statements such as "quasi-canon" > > > > and "vast history." > > > > > > I know . . . damn words and their dirty little meanings! Moron. > > > > Yup those multiple meanings when only your decision about which meaning is > > paramount is allowed. > > Oh, of course . . . because you think you can take the term "parallel > universe", remove "universe", find one part of *one* of *thirteen* > definitions of parallel that might help your cause ("interdependent"), > re-apply "universe", and claim that "parallel universe" has a new meaning as > a result. This you do in spite of the fact that it's (a) insane to try in > the first place, (b) ignores the context of Lucas's use of the term > ("outside", "other", etc.), and (c) ignores the fact that there is no > dependence on the EU by the Canon. You have yet to show that as a phrase "parallel unvierse" has a single definition. you have presened no evidence other than your own opinion on the matter, in other words failure to prove claim...concesison accepted. You have yet to deal with intrudes except to either: a dismiss it as ad-libbed or b) claim it is a temporal incursion a la Voyager-physics. You have completely failed to defend your ridiculous idea that the canon doesn't depend on the EU. It might not have to but it does as the EU creates material which the Canon then becomes dependent upon, by choice yes but it happens nonetheless. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:26:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in message news:apc360$a5oo$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:ZvKdnbUBZIRb9CSgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > news:ap9m1o$sm02d$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:ZXCdnQZ1J9vQMiqgXTWc3g@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > "Greg Burnett" wrote in message > > > > news:ap73po$s6d5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:CK2dnXC_T8gK-CugXTWc3w@comcast.com... Failure to adress any point raised & retiring from the debate noted. Concession accepted DarkStar. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:48:35 +1300 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Greg Burnett" wrote in message news:ap4dih$ri4pk$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... snip Do you expect him to change his mind? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Krokeide" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:04:18 GMT Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: <6hDt9.4495$QT5.127680@news2.ulv.nextra.no> -------- > Do you expect him to change his mind? > I just can't understand why you people don't just killfile him and forget that he even exists, it works wonders for me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:22:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "Krokeide" wrote in message news:6hDt9.4495$QT5.127680@news2.ulv.nextra.no... > > Do you expect him to change his mind? > > > > I just can't understand why you people don't just killfile him and forget > that he even exists, it works wonders for me. > Because he is one of those people who will spend his spare time preaching his false gospel if he isn't being constantly forced to prove it (even though he never has to begin with). In other words we are sparing the rest of USENET his stubborn inability to recognize deficiencies in his own work. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:01:33 GMT Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: <3DB76221.3050000@shaw.ca> -------- Greg Burnett wrote: > "Krokeide" wrote: >>>Do you expect him to change his mind? >> >>I just can't understand why you people don't just killfile him and forget >>that he even exists, it works wonders for me. > > Because he is one of those people who will spend his spare time preaching > his false gospel if he isn't being constantly forced to prove it (even > though he never has to begin with). In other words we are sparing the rest > of USENET his stubborn inability to recognize deficiencies in his own work. This is the real reason for butting heads with idiots. If people only see the one side they might fall for his lies. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:30:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB76221.3050000@shaw.ca... > This is the real reason for butting heads with idiots. If people only > see the one side they might fall for his lies. Funny, that's part of why I argue with Warsies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:09:31 +1300 Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AlWdnRCWVucqMiqgXTWc3Q@comcast.com... > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3DB76221.3050000@shaw.ca... > > > This is the real reason for butting heads with idiots. If people only > > see the one side they might fall for his lies. > > Funny, that's part of why I argue with Warsies. Your only problem is that anyone with half a brain knows you are wrong, and a verbose idiot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:52:16 GMT Subject: Re: [Canonicity] DarkStar, a quick challenge Message-ID: <3DB824DB.5090306@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>This is the real reason for butting heads with idiots. If people only >>see the one side they might fall for his lies. > > Funny, that's part of why I argue with Warsies. Projectionism is the true caller card of fanatics. C.S.Strowbridge