1998-10-09 - Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!… (fwd)

Header Data

From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@is9.nyu.edu>
To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message Hash: fbada59ca6ae99903a69ad1ad0890f6fd60bcad07b92409120afd49d90c20050
Message ID: <361D693C.54152DAA@is9.nyu.edu>
Reply To: <199810082107.QAA20666@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-09 01:54:34 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:54:34 +0800

Raw message

From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@is9.nyu.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:54:34 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199810082107.QAA20666@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <361D693C.54152DAA@is9.nyu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Jim Choate wrote:
> Forwarded message:
> > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 19:58:31 +0000
> > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@is9.nyu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
> > > What specificaly is there about the relationship between natural gas and
> > > gasoline that leads you to believe that the comparison of lethality between
> > > the waste products of a coal plant vurses a nuclear plant is such that the
> > > waste of a nuclear plant is more lethal because there is more toxic
> > > byproduct and it is in higher concentrations?
> >
> > Absolutely nothing.  That's my point, not yours --or at least not the
> > point you made in your previous post.
> It is *exactly* the point I have made from day 1.

It would appear that Jim either cannot read his own posts (and this may
well be, as I had a hard time deciphering the exact meaning of that last
paragraph-sized sentence), or simply cannot remember them.  He certainly
seems to have a problem with reading the posts of others.

> If you believe otherwise the mistake is yours.

Isn't it nice the way Jim avoids having to argue intelligently?  He can
just take the first statement that someone makes, delete everything else
after it, and proceed to do nothing but offer a contradiction.  He seems
to think that this action is sufficient to make him right, and his
opponents wrong.  Oh well, if it makes him feel better, who am I to
argue?  I certainly can't carry on an intelligent conversation with him.

Now watch Jim's response to this message.  He will:

A:  Ignore it entirely, as is often the wont of people who have no
rational argument to make, and who realize they've painted themselves
into a corner.

B:  Reply, but cut out large portions of this post, and respond with a
few trite phrases which prove absolutely nothing but assuage his ego.

C:  Reply, include all of this post, and proceed to whine about how mean
I'm being to him --flaming him for no good reason! (it's true, there
isn't a good reason for flaming one such as Jim, they have no effect
--but it is somewhat cathartic).  While being certain to avoid
responding to anything in my previous two posts --or at least not in a
way that makes any sense.

Of course, I could be wrong.  Jim *could* choose option:

D:  Re-reply to my previous post, and address the arguments which he so
conveniently chopped out this time.

But given his track record so far, I doubt it.

Michael Hohensee