In Reply to: Plucking political views out of the air posted by Siamak on July 12, 1996 at 17:44:37:
> If you had bothered to put your biases to one side while
>reading my messages, you would have discovered that I have
>dealt with all relevant issues in which case we could have
>got somewhere.Really? On June 11 I posed the following point. I redirected
you to them on June 24 and July 4:
Do you consider it better that those who work in McDs were
unemployed than working under the current regime? Remember,
many of those running this current campaign are Animal Rights Activists
and are unlikely to be concerned about the welfare of those working
in the meat industry.(check out some of the links from
the home pages)Instead of answering it, you deleted it in an attempt to
evade it by making an issue instead, of your own soapbox posturing.
Indeed, on June 11 posting, I requested that you stop eveading
the issue, it wasn't *I* who stuck up the peurile subject
title of 'workers vs capitalist' and requested that you address
the issue.You are the one who made the issue out of your political leanings by
your own actions, not I - yet here you are a month later
*still* evading the question and instead focusing solely
on my asides regarding your political posturing here and
try and pretend that it is I, rather than you, who are making
an issue of your political leanings, by the use if judicious
selective editing.Now why not answer the question for a change, as I have asked
you to do on a number of occasions? Or will you simply delete
this and continue with the smoke-screen?> Let me tell you something serious.
Fine.
>I can understand why as a McD apologist you need to prove a point.
>However, plucking political views that you have little knowledge about
>out of the air and attributing them to your opponents is clearly not going to do your cause any good.I think I've just shown that you're the one doing the political
posturing here. Are we to believe that you are surprised when someone
points it out to you? Of course the ad hominem at the beginning is
quite poor, but not unexpected.
> > However, if you insist on sounding like someone whose
> > just swallowed the complete works of Marx, Engles and Lenin
> > at one sitting, don't expect a reply from me.> Well, perhaps this Is a good moment to draw this discussion to a
> close before it degnerates further.Ah, Another neat edit. Here I asked you to address the issue
regarding the workers without resorting to cliched rhetoric. You
delete the pertinent part and leave in the aside to create
the 'Boo! Hoo! He's focusing on my politics!" illusion and
use it as an excuse to do a 'runner'.Incidently, you didn't answer my question regarding Ronald
McDonald Houses either, nor the general point about
low pay and poor working conditions in the High St retail
sector or NHS. But, perhaps a straight answer was expecting
too much.
______________________McSpotlight replies:
On the subject of subject headers (see "it wasn't *I* who stuck up the peurile subject
title" in the message above), our moderators tend to replace
any subject header left as "re: the last message" so it is clear
what the message is about to people looking through the list of
postings. We read through the message and try to choose a few
words or a sentence that sum up the content.Apologies to anyone who feels that their message was given an
inappropriate subject header. If you want to avoid this, please make
sure you write in your own subject headers.