From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #3 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Thursday, January 3 2002 Volume 06 : Number 003 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 2002 20:50:45 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point ln wrote: > > <> > > I don't think anything that contributes toward a hatred or dislike is > insignificant, especially considering the supposedly insignificant things > quite often grow to be very significant. But..I didn't say it was a major > part, I said don't dismiss it completely as *some* part. Its like concentrating on the peanuts when you have a HUGE F-ing elephant in the room. And if it is such a minor thing that could turn out to be a *major* problem, what would you do to help these countries that have "freedom envy"? Would you perhaps ... promote democracy? not friendly dictatorships? etc. you mean, we'd have to *gasp* look at our foreign policy and make some changes. hmmm.. think we'd probably fix this really minor issue if tackled some of the major issues. > <> > > The biggest thing would be that *everything* can be solved without violence. I'm curious, where was this opinion put out there? History has shown that dialog is much better at solving issues than the gun will ever be (unless you completely subdue you opponent and/or wipe them completely off the planet). > < didn't *give* money to charity were communists and libertarians, but > they were the only people he knew who didn't *like* charity.>> > > I know, it's just that it sounded like he was saying that anyone who *doesn't* > give charity is bad or something. And I just wanted to make that distinction > clear. Okay.. and this point is relevant how? He didn't say it or insinuate that people who don't give to charity are bad people. It would be a very long argument if everyone had to write their positions in such a way that they said random (yet somehow related) items to help ease the insecurities of everyone else in the room whenever a certain topic is even remotely broached. Its like arguing for or against planned parenthood funding and then having to randomly say that "not all people who get abortions are bad people". It doesn't need to be said, because you never implied that in the first place. Bill ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jan 2002 20:36:42 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point ln says: [snip - richards well educated statement about removing popular support] > There will always *always* be someone who can gather followers, oppressed or > not. You won't remove popular support. The oppression only makes it a little > easier to gain that support. The only thing you can hope to do (in terms of > terrorism) by removing the oppression is make it a little harder to get > followers. But there will be something new to take the place of the > oppression, a continuing cycle. Nothing like saying nothing right? What are you digging at here? Either you are removing incentive for people to not follow (i.e. by removing the injustice) or you're not doing anything in which case what you are doing is not a cause for why these actions are taking place. Or are you trying to suggest that it is in human nature inherantly to want to kill people? That no matter what you do, popular (by popular I believe it is safe to assume that Richard means a majority of the local population) support will always be there for killing, that if you treat people with respect and dignity that you can always assume death and violence follows? If it is a never ending cycle, then why bother doing anything at all? > >So why do all major faiths and philosophies promote charity and the > >redistribution of wealth? Coincidence? Or because it leads to giving > >individuals a sense of responsibility to the societies we live in, > >improved cohesion of those societies and more equitable treatment of > >all people? > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Paganism, nihilism, > existentialism, need I continue? > > Great...now we get into faiths and philosophies. Again. What is your point here? Or are you just commenting for the sake of commenting? Or are you attempting to say that none of these promote charity? And if so, I'd really love to see your reasoning behind it, considering that I know Buddhism promotes generosity and charity pretty highly. > >And I've countered your theory. All > >you are doing now is trying to make out you're winning the argument > >(without evidence, of course). Which you are not. > > Not to be a bitch, but it seems to me that all either of you are doing at this > point is disagreeing for the hell of it. It seems like your posts say, "These > are my beliefs, I'm stickin' to 'em, and now I'm just gonna prove you > wrong." Well, if that is how you think, then I don't think you were paying attention. If this was a small argument, say at a livingroom table, then maybe you'd be able to get away with saying that "I believe foo" without having to have any sort of reasoning as to why you actually believe in foo. But if you're going to get on a soapbox and preach to a group of people about how your belief is right, you probably should be able to back up your belief with some facts and maybe some "real world" examples. > >will you please stop trying to make out that you speak > >for the rest of this newsgroup? If I'm embarrassing myself, I'll get > >people emailing me and telling me, and I'll get people posting here > >and telling me. And, I have to tell you, that as of this moment I have > >received no such communication. > > You're both embarassing yourselves, in my opinion, mostly because of carrying > on over the same points when you know neither of you is going to concede. Well there you go Richard, you're embarassing yourself. You too Eric! You both should be ashamed. I personally haven't seen anything that would be too much of an embarassment, besides a very fundimental lack of understanding about the electoral college. Esp. given the fiasco we had for an "election" this go 'round. But I suppose that is just me. > >How blind is that? You argue for its right to exist and operate. Fine. > >It goes off and acts completely inequitably. Buts that's okay; Eric > >doesn't care. Bully for Eric. The IMF is seen as a tool of > >economically agressive western imperialism, but that's okay, you just > >demand its right to exist. You don't care about what it actually does > >while it exists. Crazy. > > "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right > to say it." > --- Voltaire The IMF's actions and/or existence have nothing to do with free speech. And everything to do with keeping the poorest nations indebted to the richest. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2002 08:50:53 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) wrote in message news:<20020102150121.08973.00000990@mb-cn.aol.com>... > Whoa, whoa, whoa. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Paganism, nihilism, > existentialism, need I continue? I think you do need to continue, as for the life of me I don't see what your point is. My point is that any faith or philosophy that has been taken up in a large scale way (so Paganism, nihilism, existentialism and libertarianism don't count) and has lastingly sustained a society has promoted in one way or another some conception of collective wealth redistribution (which equates to charitable giving). My contention is that fact is not a coincidence, because collective charity not only benefits those directly receiving, but also those giving, because it places them within the society they live in with tangible responsibilities to that society. And that creates a more cohesive, mature society. Now what's your point? > Not to be a bitch, but it seems to me that all either of you are doing at this > point is disagreeing for the hell of it. No, I'm disagreeing because this is incredibly important, because I don't want to live in the sort of world my grandparents lived in, with major industrialised carnage every 20 years or so. Thanks to India and Pakistan the world is closer to nuclear war now than it has been since the early 60s, and I'm sorry The War Against Terrorism (or TWAT, for short) supporters, I think that fact has rather a lot to do with the US's recent support for the 'relatively moderate[1]' military dictatorship in Pakistan. I'm going to disagree with the Erics of this world at every opportunity I can, because I don't want to live the rest of my life in a world at war. > You're both embarassing yourselves, in my opinion, mostly because of carrying > on over the same points when you know neither of you is going to concede. Well its just me, but I sort of get a little weary and touch lachrymose with people who... 1. confuse the contents of an economics textbook with reality 2. announce they speak for the newsgroup 3. call people not of his nationality 'foreigners' on an international forum 4. then tell us "I nonetheless feel the need to distinguish between correct arguments and inane ones" 5. follows that up by laughably getting the wrong end of the Northern Ireland argument stick, not once, but twice 6. follows that up by asking how the next Bin Laden should be countered, then when told in great detail, offers no counter to that argument other than to say it was 'long winded' 7. and then, just to put the cherry on his little cake, tells us "For every weak piece of evidence you have shown, I countered. You just choose to ignore that." ...and by the contents of my email inbox, I know I'm not the only one. Eric probably thinks that people being irritated by his empty online bluster is not his problem. I think it is. Richard [1] Oh AJ. How I laughed. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2002 10:24:59 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Eric says: > bbwminors@aol.com (BBWMinors) wrote in > <20011220134159.01603.00000383@mb-ch.aol.com>: > > Actually, even THAT is debatable. I think the recipient of the popular > > vote in Florida is getting fat and bearded in Tennessee even as we > > speak. > > Nope. Take a look at every single study published since the election. Even > the extensive recount that Al Gore requested would not have won him the > election. If I'm not mistaken (i.e., someone with more time please check on > this), the only way Gore would have won was if not only the undervotes > (e.g., when a card was punched once but not all the way through) were > counted, but ALSO the overvotes (e.g., when more than one hole was punched) > and assumed attributed to Gore. If there were ballots where Gore and > another candidate were both punched, I don't think it is in anyone's > interests to just assume that those votes were for Gore. That, of course, > is my opinion. Having just heard a report on NPR about this, saying that Gore would have won the election had he had all the votes in all the counties of florida recounted instead of just the counties he had requested, I find your "every single study" theory kind of suspect. Beyond that, just because the recount would have come up with the same result (suspect), it doesn't excuse the fact that Bush is president because the Supreme Court installed him, instead of the people. I think it is in everyone's interest to be able to at least believe elections are fair and that their vote will count (even if under our current system it will be more or less depending on whether you live where nobody is or where there are a lot of people). "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2002 10:16:00 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > And if I hear one more person trying to disgrace our Constitution, I'm going > to throw up. Perhaps I should hand you a barf bucket. > >Not only that, but the electoral college *encourages* people not to > >vote. > > You could just as well say that a popular election would encourage people > not to vote -- if one candidate is clearly ahead in the polls (i.e., 1996), > why would anyone across the entire country go to vote? It seems to me that > this turnout would be even worse. Worse than 51%, you have to be out of your gord. I will tell you why you'd go out and vote, because your vote would COUNT, fairly and equally. You wouldn't have to resort to vote swapping when voting for third party candidates in close elections (people swapping votes in states like texas so that they could still vote for Gore even though they wanted to vote for the green party in their state, but the race was too close - i.e. you who would have voted for Gore in Texas, I'll vote for Gore in MN, as long as you vote for Nader there -- and this did happen). Wouldn't polling in the east coast encourage people on the west coast if their candidate was losing? Plus, are you suggesting that high polling numbers doesn't effect current elections? That if someone is polling high that it doesn't discourage people from voting because the electoral college will save them? Dont' make me laugh. Or perhaps you should. I have an idea, we should just use the supreme court system, get all 9 of them to vote (100% participation) and have them choose the president. I seriously doubt that going to popular elections would create a lower turnout than this past election has, except maybe the next election under the same flawed, idiotic system, which i might add has made us the laughing stock of democracies all over the planet, even the ones we helped inspire. > >Anyone who is "proud" of the fairness of the last election, > >obviously doesn't know the system very well and has no qualms about > >the supreme court electing their president and the person that had the > >clear majority is not in the oval office. > > Or rather, anyone who is not proud of the last election obviously doesn't > know anything about our country's history or founding principles. Oh give me a break. You really think that the founding fathers wanted the presidency decided by the supreme court? If so, why the hell would we vote in the first place? Why not just set up an oligarcy? Why bother going through the trouble of setting up the electoral college system? Why go through the hassle of having the house and senate vote for president and vice president if nobody gets a plurality? You who seem to be so keen on preserving our principles seem very quick to throw them out. Why not count every vote? Wasn't this country founded for the people, by the people? I guess that gets tucked away when it no longer becomes 'easy' to determine who should rule? Did I vote for the supreme court? No. Why should they determine who should sit at the head of my government? Now you are making me laugh. > Please tell me, what do you think should have happened instead of the Supreme > Court handling this process? How about counting the votes that were cast? Seems pretty logical to me. We vote for a president, that the votes we cast be actually *used* to determine who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. > We should have just ignored all applicable laws and our Constitution and put > Al Gore in office? Please. Please show me in the constitution where it says that the supreme court can decide who should be in the whitehouse? also, please tell me how counting each vote is against the constitution? which applicable laws would have been broken to actually count the votes that were cast? yea, instead of putting the clear majority winner into the oval office, we can just install an illegitimate "president". yea, much better. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2002 10:31:27 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > "Chris K @*_*@" wrote in > <3C1E2A30.60ACE87A@ehmail.com>: > >wouldn't you rather have your vote count directly > >in the election? > > It counts directly in determining how my state's representatives to the > electoral college will vote. Ha ha ha ha.. *picks himself off the floor*. That's a great one! You can only say this with a straight face if: a. you live in a state where it mandates that the electoral college electorate has to vote with the majority of the state (unless the state split votes, like Maine). b. given a, you vote for the candidate that wins. Does your vote count directly in the electoral college if you vote for the candidate that loses? Yea, I didn't think so. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 2002 13:31:36 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > bbwminors@aol.com (BBWMinors) wrote in > <20011220134159.01603.00000383@mb-ch.aol.com>: > > Actually, even THAT is debatable. I think the recipient of the popular > > vote in Florida is getting fat and bearded in Tennessee even as we > > speak. > > Nope. Take a look at every single study published since the election. Even > the extensive recount that Al Gore requested would not have won him the > election. If I'm not mistaken (i.e., someone with more time please check on > this), the only way Gore would have won was if not only the undervotes > (e.g., when a card was punched once but not all the way through) were > counted, but ALSO the overvotes (e.g., when more than one hole was punched) > and assumed attributed to Gore. If there were ballots where Gore and > another candidate were both punched, I don't think it is in anyone's > interests to just assume that those votes were for Gore. That, of course, > is my opinion. For shits and giggles.... From USA Today online: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20011213/3696519s.htm "Two newspaper projects scrutinizing the balloting found that if the recounts had continued in the four challenged Florida counties, Bush still would have won by a slight margin. Both studies found that if all the disputed ballots were counted statewide -- an idea the Supreme Court endorsed but that neither side pursued -- Vice President Gore would have won Florida and the election." Cheers, "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:13:59 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > > It counts directly in determining how my state's > > representatives to the > > electoral college will vote. What about third parties in elections? Do you think that some want the electoral college abolished and have made attempts throughout history? http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/index.html What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system? Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876 and 1888 elections). ------------------------------ Date: 04 Jan 2002 02:16:18 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Richard said: >My contention is >that fact is not a coincidence, because collective charity not only >benefits those directly receiving, but also those giving, because it >places them within the society they live in with tangible >responsibilities to that society. And that creates a more cohesive, >mature society. Okay, I read that wrong before. My bad. That makes perfect sense, and I agree with it. >I'm going to disagree with the Erics of this world at every >opportunity I can, because I don't want to live the rest of my life in >a world at war. Nor do I. But knowing that you don't support at least this war, and knowing that Eric and I both apparently do, while acknowledging the other has some valid points, it has become largely an argument of pride. Sitting around reading snide posts ridiculing your stance doesn't make you want to listen to the person, and, as someone said before, it comes down to beliefs, and it's very difficult to get people to change their beliefs. Yet we seem to keep trying at that's where it seems like arguing for the hell of it. It's basically a very inflamed stalemate. >Well its just me, but I sort of get a little weary and touch >lachrymose with people who... >1. confuse the contents of an economics textbook with reality >7. and then, just to put the cherry on his little cake, tells us "For >every weak piece of evidence you have shown, I countered. You just >choose to ignore that." I get annoyed with those things too. But is it really necessary to keep going on and on over the same points? Different ones, sure. But what I've noticed happening is this: Richard makes point. Eric disagrees. Richard backs up his point. Eric sometimes backs up his. Eric asks for alternatives. Richard supplies what he thinks are good alternatives. Eric disagrees. Richard backs up his point in a different way. Eric disagrees. Richard talks about how Eric doesn't back things up. Eric says he does. Richard points out an instance where Eric doesn't. Eric comes up with a backing for that instance. Richard disagrees. Eric talks about Richard's point (usually negatively) again. Richard protests, and asks for Eric to back up his argument. Eric says he did. Richard points out he didn't. Eric comes up with backing. Richard disagrees. etc. etc. etc. and all the while everyone arguing as if they're talking to a two year old. It's like digging through the mush to get to the valid good arguments. >Eric probably thinks that people being irritated by his empty online >bluster is not his problem. I think it's his problem to explain his "bluster" and if he can't, to admit it. Same with me, with you, with anyone. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 04 Jan 2002 02:15:50 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Bill says: >Nothing like saying nothing right? What are you digging at here? >Either you are removing incentive for people to not follow (i.e. by >removing the injustice) or you're not doing anything in which case >what you are doing is not a cause for why these actions are taking >place. Or are you trying to suggest that it is in human nature >inherantly to want to kill people? That no matter what you do, >popular (by popular I believe it is safe to assume that Richard means >a majority of the local population) support will always be there for >killing, that if you treat people with respect and dignity that you >can always assume death and violence follows? If it is a never ending >cycle, then why bother doing anything at all? Bother doing anything because it will help reduce it. What I'm saying is that several factors contribute towards gaining popular support for someone like bin Laden. In the specific case of bin Laden, it's mainly the oppression, like Richard said. He said, remove the oppression, and you'll remove bin Laden's popular support. And I agree with that. My point then is that there will be something else that crops up (the never ending cycle) and that we need to keep an eye on what someone like bin Laden can use as an excuse to gain popular support. Basically what I'm saying is if we aren't fair to other countries on everything (like Richard said is a good idea) there will be something else that can be used to gain popular support. What I'm suggesting about human nature is that for some people like bin Laden, it apparently is their nature to kill people, and they'll want followers. Remove as much of the incentive for following as possible. Right now it's oppression. Remove that, which is good. But be wary of other things coming up, and stay on top of them, and stay fair. >Again. What is your point here? Or are you just commenting for the >sake of commenting? Or are you attempting to say that none of these >promote charity? And if so, I'd really love to see your reasoning >behind it, considering that I know Buddhism promotes generosity and >charity pretty highly. I'm not saying that none of them promote charity, what I'm saying is two things. A) Parts of some of these philosophies/religion, etc. is not responsibility toward society, or at least not primarily, but toward the self. And B) While promoting charity may be a part of the religion or philosophy, it is often not a main focal point or consideration of said religion/philosophy. That's all. And Catholicism, in particular, I feel goes about their charity/morality stuff wrong anyway. It's being trained to feel guilty if you don't do what someone else tells you is morally right. > Well, if that is how you think, then I don't think you were paying >attention. If this was a small argument, say at a livingroom table, >then maybe you'd be able to get away with saying that "I believe foo" >without having to have any sort of reasoning as to why you actually >believe in foo. But if you're going to get on a soapbox and preach to >a group of people about how your belief is right, you probably should >be able to back up your belief with some facts and maybe some "real >world" examples. Indeed. Which Richard did, very nicely. I may not agree with everything, but I'm willing to agree to disagree because things were backed up. Does he need to *keep* doing it on the same points? No, in my opinion. And that's my problem with how this discussion is continuing. People have made their points, trying to "preach about how their belief is right" and others don't agree. Okay. Points were made. Beliefs still differ. Move on. >Well there you go Richard, you're embarassing yourself. You too Eric! >You both should be ashamed. I personally haven't seen anything that >would be too much of an embarassment, besides a very fundimental lack >of understanding about the electoral college. How about using "dear" and "sweetheart" etc. brushing off arguments, and basically trying to make someone who disagrees with you feel stupid/inferior, etc? That's only effective for so long. Then it just gets annoying, petty, childish, whatever you want to call it. >> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right >> to say it." >> --- Voltaire >The IMF's actions and/or existence have nothing to do with free >speech. And everything to do with keeping the poorest nations >indebted to the richest. I didn't say it did. I was merely using a related example, because it was nicely parallel and fitting. What I was pointing out is that Richard thought it odd that Eric defends the IMF's right to exist, even if he may not like what it does, which is quite reminiscent of Voltaire saying that he defends anyone's right to say what they want (parallel to Eric's IMF right to exist) even though he may not necessarily agree with what the person is saying (parallel to Eric's not necessarily agreeing with the IMF's actions.) Ln ------------------------------ Date: 04 Jan 2002 02:57:04 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Bill said: >Would you perhaps ... promote democracy? >not friendly dictatorships? etc. you mean, we'd have to *gasp* look >at our foreign policy and make some changes. Considering I've been for changing our foreign policy through much of this discussion, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make it sound like this is a new idea to me. Thanks. >hmmm.. think we'd >probably fix this really minor issue if tackled some of the major >issues. Um, yeah. Most likely. > I'm curious, where was this opinion put out there? History has shown >that dialog is much better at solving issues than the gun will ever be >(unless you completely subdue you opponent and/or wipe them completely >off the planet). Neville Chamberlain was about dialogue. Got him real far. All I'm saying is that yes, sometimes words are better. Sometimes they aren't. In this specific case, I feel that words aren't enough. Words need to be used in one part, the gun in another. >Okay.. and this point is relevant how? He didn't say it or insinuate >that people who don't give to charity are bad people. I took it as insinuating when he said something to the effect of (talking about money) "I do all this and more. How about you?" >Its like arguing for or against planned >parenthood funding and then having to randomly say that "not all >people who get abortions are bad people". It doesn't need to be said, >because you never implied that in the first place. No, it's not. It's like him arguing against abortions and me for it, and having him say, "Well, *I* didn't get an abortion because I don't feel it's a moral thing to do." And me countering that. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 03:28:17 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point SugarFly26 wrote: >I get annoyed with those things too. But is it >really necessary to keep going >on and on over the same points? Different ones, sure. >But what I've noticed >happening is this: > > Richard makes point. > Eric disagrees. > Richard backs up his point. > Eric sometimes backs up his. > Eric asks for alternatives. > Richard supplies what he thinks are good alternatives. > Eric disagrees. > Richard backs up his point in a different way. > Eric disagrees. > Richard talks about how Eric doesn't back things up. > Eric says he does. > Richard points out an instance where Eric doesn't. > Eric comes up with a backing for that instance. > Richard disagrees. > Eric talks about Richard's point (usually negatively) again. > Richard protests, and asks for Eric to back up his argument. > Eric says he did. > Richard points out he didn't. > Eric comes up with backing. > Richard disagrees. Sounds like a debating team from what you described. Do they have that at your high school Ln? Because you see the points very vividly - might be a good extra-curricular activity for you. Christine. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #3 ******************************************