: Sensitive? Who wouldn't be sensitive to your unceasing sleazy insinuations that I am is advocating a Nazi-style control?You linked to this post. Perhaps you should have read it aswell. youre paranoia is amazing - or rather your noisy indignant cries are transparent evasions. Are you going to debate anything at all - or have you lost it completely and are now reduced to name calling. Perhaps the christmas break will do you good.
: Despite the many posts I have put forward to PROVE OTHERWISE, you STILL say 'But it could happen...' Which shows that you DISREGARD job rotation as a means to prevent such usurption. Fine. Leave it then.
You thought you were PROVING something were you? You were simply describing theoretical models in which it may work. I disregard job rotation on the basis that people wont go for it - even RD didnt sign up to the BS school of rotation - how do you expect 'the masses' to? Evade that - without reference to some fantasy model in which it all works because Lenin et al says it must.
: Do YOU ever put forward positive statements? Such as mine on freedom, job rotation, the middle class, wages, the peasant, Russia, etc., etc., etc.?
Thats you being positive is it?
: NO---you never even start debate strings. All you do is live like a shadow, feeding upon other people's posts---nit-picking, criticising, insinuating all sorts of things that aren't really there; in other words, acting like an intellectual parasite.
Factually wrong:
here
here
here
here
and here
Ofcourse if you wanted to say I didnt post afresh often enough then do so (by whose standard btw) but just lying is, well apparently not, beneath you. The melodramatic charicature you've created for me (parasite monsters from outer-post) is laughable. Especially as you consider me to be the one transgressing debate into personal attacks!
: You start out here saying that any political party with limited membership will INVARIABLY become Nazis (not the Democrats and Republicans?; not intentional communities?)
Where was the word invariably? Or were you lying again. The words were 'liable to become' meaning "more or less probable"-Websters, 1913. It is you, and only you, who read into that a 'smear' campaign.
I do wish you'g get off your downward spiral and get back to debating - at least you can make some worthy points when you debate. Your diatribes are revealing but have little to do with the subject at hand.
and after Mcspotlight asks us to DROP THE SUBJECT, you have the gall to slip it in under their radar AGAIN.
Radar? I continued the debate you evaded with your wild accusation - I'd welcome anyone who took it up as a debate.
Anyone debating without the "intellectual parasite" name calling nonsense?
None.
