XPost: calgary.general, can.general, tor.general 
 XPost: van.general 
 From: schwepp@schweep.com 
  
 In article , klunk@theothershoe.org 
 says... 
 > 
 >>>> It is Called the Illuminati... 
 > 
 >>>...as written about MW Cooper in Behold a Pale Horse? 
 >>>Interesting book (hard to read, it was a basement type publication - he 
 >>>couldn't find any mainstream publishers to accept the manuscript)...he 
 >>>was branded a conspiracy kook, yet, he was a US naval intelligence 
 >>>officer, privy to top secret info... 
 >>>The Illuminati, The Elders of Zion, The Tri-lateral commission... he 
 >>>wrote about them in BaPH. If half is true...it's beyond insidious. 
 > 
 >> What if none of it is true?  Then you'll cry.  BOO HOO Irish eyes are 
 flooding 
 >> with tears 
 > 
 >geezus schweep... are you at all capable of communicating WITHOUT childish 
 >taunts... man! you need some serious psychological help with your 
 >insecurities.... 
  
 Oh do I?  So point me to where in the DSM it says anything about people who 
 mock idiots having 'serious psychological insecurities'.  I mean, you're not 
 just talking out of your ass as usual, are you?  You must have some sort of 
 academically authoratative reference for supporting your pathetic abuse, 
 right? 
  
 Do you even realize how pathetic it is to suggest that a person mocking 
 anothers colossal stupidity has 'psychological problems'?  First of all, 
 there 
 is a long tradition among losers, sometimes manifesting among entire 
 cultures 
 (see Scotland) who think that anyone who tries to actually learn about 
 stuff, 
 and NOT be a moron is 'arrogant' and is an abberation from the community of 
 illiterate twits. 
  
 The sad fact is that neither of us have any 'psycholgical problems'.  The 
 difference between us is that I have enough self-worth to actually make a 
 concerted effort to make myself more intelligent, by embracing the tools of 
 critical thinking, while you are content to be a complete ignoramus.  I 
 have a 
 RIGHT to be mocking others when they are WRONG, you don't have a right to be 
 mocking me for being right.  Doing so is just a reflection of your own 
 pathetic 
 situation.  And if you actually bothered to think about it, you might 
 realize 
 how unsatisfying that routine is.  If you're not going to argue 
 intelligently, 
 the only way you can win an argument is by ranting, raving, and abusing in 
 any 
 possible way you can. 
  
 What you, and most people don't realize is that people learn how to argue 
 effectively through evolutionary, not critical means.  So people develop 
 habits 
 that have worked for them in the past.  For example, if I want to convince 
 you 
 that the moon is made of green cheese, I might say "well it looks a lot like 
 cheese, doesn't it?", then I would observe your reaction to see if that 
 argument seemed convincing to you.  If it did, I'll surely use it again next 
 time I talk to someone about the moon being made of green cheese.  If your 
 reaction was disbelief, then I might try another approach.  I might wave my 
 fist, raise my voice and say "the moon is definitely made of green cheese!". 
 Then I'd observe your reaction again.  If you submit to that approach, I 
 will 
 probably file it away and use it again.  That's how we've arrived at where 
 we 
 are today, whereby we can identify common types of arguments called 
 'fallacies' that have developed evolutionarily over the eons.  The only way 
 to 
 get around this unconscious means of argumentation is to take a critical 
 approach, by identifying fallacious arguments before we issue them, and then 
 choosing not to. 
  
 The simpliest, most obvious, and probably most common fallacy is 'argument 
 to 
 ignorance', which you exhibited today in the 'freethinker' conversation. 
 Since 
 your initial statment was "what's a freethinker, you get your thoughts from 
 a 
 garage sale?', you lost the argument before I even got a word in because you 
 exhibited that you were unaware that the term 'freethinker' has a long and 
 rich 
 history and thus, a specific definition.  In otherwords, for any sort of 
 reasonable discussion to occur, all participating parties have to have some 
 understanding of what they're discussing. 
  
 As for me mocking stupidity, you don't have to worry about that.  Because if 
 I'm  wrong then I will be looking that much more foolish.  That's exactly 
 what 
 happened when you tried to mock me for refering to myself as a 
 'freethinker'. 
 Since you didn't know what a freethinker was, you ended up looking like the 
 total fool you are.  We take a risk when we decide to mock stupidity.  I 
 only 
 take that risk when I am quite sure I am right.  If you would take that 
 approach more often, you wouldn't constantly be making a complete fool of 
 yourself, and fretting over your ensuing angst. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)