IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New But does it have to be that way?
Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is a good example.

Corporations >CAN< be moral and have ethics.

I see it a different way. Corporations allow ALL of their people to be a TINY bit evil and this results in large, "evil" actions.
New I love those ethics.
Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer.

Give me Dupont any day.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!
New You obviously know zero about this case..(added link)
...or you wouldn't even bother.

Most of the people for >the cause< don't have any clue.

Read the transcripts.

Look at the evidence.

Guilty as charged.

[link|http://www.danielfaulkner.com/|Start Here]
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 15, 2002, 07:36:18 PM EST
New Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?

Hmmmmmmm?

Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?

Your fear makes you weak.
New A jury did settle it.
They found him guilty 20 years ago.

Do yourself a favor. Read the transcripts.

Even his own brother has never come to his defense. And he was there.

Or are you content to be like Mike. Mike Farrell that is. Support the cause without any clue of the evidence against the man. Gun in hand. Bullet match.

How many different judges have to affirm this? We're at about half a dozen so far.


You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.

But you are afraid.

You're afraid that he might be found innocent.

Really, what's the harm in another trial?

Your fear speaks.
New So...
...we should let everyone convicted of capital murder sit around and wait for 20 years...then give them a brand new trial?

What makes Wesley Cook so deserving of a new trial? Please...give me the reason that every Judge has missed so far that would make him deserving where so many others are not.

5 eyewitnesses saw him cross the street from a parking lot (his cab was there...award winning journalist???..no...cab driver)...raise a weapon, fire, then lean over after the Officer was down and fire another shot into the officer's face. He was identified as the shooter at the scene. The spent casings in the charter arms 38 match the bullets pulled from the dead officer's body.

So please...can you tell me what makes Mr Cook deserving of a new trial?

Don't tell me I'm afraid...give me a reason he should be retried...a reason that both State and Federal Judges seem to have missed. A reason that makes this case special where so many others are not.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Just giving you enough rope.
So you can hang yourself.

Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer.
You see, it wasn't the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream company that gave ANY money to that cause.

Ben Cohen signed a petition supporting another trial for Abu-Jamal.

Ben & Jerry's (the company) did not.

Once again, you've proven your inability to research a topic.

Now is when you tell me to go to recess or some other dismissive and refuse to discuss the issue further.

Sux to be you, dude.
New Answer the question.
Or can't you?

You cited B&J's as a company that operated with morality and ethics.

One of the co-founders signed a petition in support of freeing a convicted cop killer. He then felt compelled to explain himself a tad more completely later...maybe he finally read the court transcripts.

But, I'll grant you that the "company" has denied any involvement...and that Ben acted as a private citizen. So, it is quite possible that Ben & Jerry's Inc. operates morally and ethically and that my beef is only with one of the company's officers.

But that doesn't absolve you.

On what grounds do you grant a new trial?

I'm really interested...considering how many different Judges have looked over this case and not been able to come with a reason.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New You're just hanging yourself higher.
Answer the question.
Or can't you?
You must have missed my point about your "question" being based upon ignorance of the facts. Ha ha!

You cited B&J's as a company that operated with morality and ethics.
That's close enough.

One of the co-founders signed a petition in support of freeing a convicted cop killer. He then felt compelled to explain himself a tad more completely later...maybe he finally read the court transcripts.
And you >STILL< have a problem understanding that he did not state that was official company policy.

Oh, allow me to QUOTE YOUR ORIGINAL ALLEGATION BACK IN YOUR FACE!!!

Contribute money to a fund to free a convicted cop killer.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company DID NOT DO THAT!!!

Ben Cohen signed a petition.

Ben Cohen != Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Go ahead! Hang yourself again! Take some more rope!

But, I'll grant you that the "company" has denied any involvement...
Oooooohhhhhhh! So, do you have ANY evidence that the COMPANY had an offical statement supporting that petition?

No. I didn't think you did.

Do you have any evidence showing that the COMPANY contributed money to that cause LIKE YOU HAD ORIGINALLY CLAIMED!!!!!

No. I didn't think you did.

But >NOW< you're going to weasel and twist and (what the definition of "is" is....) so you won't look like the IDIOT you are. Too bad, soo sad. You're an idiot that's that.

and that Ben acted as a private citizen.
And, given that I was discussing CORPORATIONS, what the fuck are you trying to prove by pointing to someone doing something on his own time? Hmmmmm?

So, it is quite possible that Ben & Jerry's Inc. operates morally and ethically and that my beef is only with one of the company's officers.
Great. Whatever-the-fuck! I'm happy you like beef with Mr. Cohen.

You >DO< realize that this has NOTHING to do with my original statement, right?

But that doesn't absolve you.
Of what? I'm sorry, Mr. Bill Patient (GOD!). I wasn't aware that I had committed a sin. Could you tell me what sin it was???

On what grounds do you grant a new trial?
At which point we discover that Bill really IS an idiot.

You don't get it, STILL!!!

Your ORIGINAL point was FUCKED UP!

It was INCORRECT!!!

You were WRONG!!!

I was giving you space so you could make a total FOOL of yourself.

Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company NEVER GAVE MONEY TO THAT CAUSE!!!

You didn't do the most basic research before shooting your idiot mouth off AGAIN!!!

I'm really interested...considering how many different Judges have looked over this case and not been able to come with a reason.
Bill? Are you listening? HE'S FUCKING GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE KILLED THAT COP!!!!!!

I was giving you a trail to follow BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS WEASEL ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

So, I give you something that is obviously false and you'll admit that your previous statement was wrong SO YOU CAN PURSUE THE OBVIOUSLY FALSE ONE.

You're so pathetically easy to manipulate.

Remember your regressive == progressive tax stupidity?

Go ahead and run now. Yes, I do realize that, this time, my post is juvinile and snotty. And it was intended as such.

Allow me to remind you that you were wrong and Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Company did NOT contribute money to freeing a convicted cop killer.

You were wrong.

And the only way to get you to admit that was to let you believe you were trapping me on some tanget issue.

And do NOT try to claim that you'd have admitted you were wrong if I had pointed it out.

In the other thread I quoted you and you still wouldn't admit it.
New Childish little prick
Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!

Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?

Hmmmmmmm?

Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?

Your fear makes you weak.

I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.

But you are afraid.

You're afraid that he might be found innocent.

Really, what's the harm in another trial?

Your fear speaks.


There. The entire contents of your three responses to Bill before revealing that you were just "giving him enough rope." And, not so incidentally, your entire contribution to this thread to that point.

Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers.

I'll answer for you. Nowhere. Here, I'll quote you again, since you seem to think that's meaningful.

Jawohl!
The State is never wrong!

Hmmmmm, maybe you're right.
So, why don't we let a jury settle it?

Hmmmmmmm?

Or is it that you're afraid that another trial will find him not guilty?

Your fear makes you weak.

I've read the case.
And if you're right, then there's nothing you have to be afraid of.

But you are afraid.

You're afraid that he might be found innocent.

Really, what's the harm in another trial?

Your fear speaks.


See? Still nothing about your supposed "real point." Three posts in a row insisting that your "point" had something to do with the case Bill mentioned. Nothing at all about your other point.

Did you change topics in the middle of the discussion? Oh no, not you! You were merely "giving him enough rope" so that you could say, "HA HA HA, that's not really what I was talking about!"

So much for your right to ever criticize anyone for changing topics mid-stream.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
New how do you know he's little ? ]:->
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
New You can quote, but you lack understanding.
Duh!

Did you not read my last posts?

Did you not SEE where I said that the posts you quoted we intended to manipulate Bill?

Yet you think they have some value other than that?

Let me clarify this for you. They don't.

Did you miss that?

Let me say it again. They don't have any value OTHER than manipulating Bill.

I posted them to manipulate Bill into admitting he was WRONG on his INITIAL statement.

Where in there does it say anything about the company not being responsible for the actions of what of its officers.
Hello? *knock* *knock*! Any one home, Drew?

Tell you what. Let me quote MYSELF to you:
I was giving you a trail to follow BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS WEASEL ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SAID.
There. Do you remember that? I know it might be hard for you. It was so long ago (in the post you replied to).

Now, do you want to know WHY I did that? I don't think you do, but I'll tell you anyway.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120]

Look at that exchange. See how I directly quoted Bill's words back to him showing the contradiction in plain english and he still denied it.

So, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, (you do understand what "comprehension" is, don't you), I was giving Bill the tangent he wanted that was obviously WRONG(do I have to state that AGAIN? You CAN read, right?) so he could, comfortably, admit that he was wrong.

That's ALL that those postings were.

Can I make this any PLAINER to you?

Well, I know I can't. I remember that you're also one who likes to get lost in tangents instead of addressing the original statement.

So sad for you. But you have Bill for company.

Allow me to summarize the discussion.
I said that B&J are an example of how a company can be operated with ethics.
Bill said that B&J's "ethics" allowed them to contribute money to free a cop killer.
*****THIS STATEMENT BY BILL IS INCORRECT*****
Now, let's look at Bill's past with regards to obviously incorrect statements he makes:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=28120|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=28120]
So, I feed Bill a line I know (from past experience) he'll fall for.
The exchange goes until I have him hooked.
Then I point out that his original statement was incorrect.
He admits it (A FUCKING FIRST!!!!!!) but wants to pursue the incorrect statements I made.

Drew, THAT'S WHY I MADE THOSE STATEMENTS.

Deal with it.

You don't like to see Bill manipulated into admitting he's wrong.

That's very commendable of you.
New You don't need to be manipulated
You prove on your own that you can be a raving asshole without the common decency to hold a civil discussion. So I won't try.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
New Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Hate me because I'm better than you.

You don't like my public demonstration of the techiques for manipulating the small minded?

Deal with it.

Bill is not interested in holding a civil discussion with me. Support for that statement can be found in the url I referenced in my preceeding post.

Review it.

Learn from it.

And try to work on your comprehension skills.
New Oh, no wonder you're so upset
I finally read that link you pointed me to. Looks to me like Bill refused to accept your requirement of stating a binary position. When he insists on a nuanced position you accuse him of weasling. When he acceptsyour proposed binary deinition for the sake of argument, you accuse him of a binary worldview and shoot down your own straw man.

You: "I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive."

Bill: "By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive.

However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I?"

See? He uses your definition for the sake of argument, then points out that it was, in fact, your argument, not his.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
New Let's go over that again.
So, he admits that a sales tax is regressive.

Then he wants to combine a REGRESSIVE tax with a FLAT tax and have the RESULT be a PROGRESSIVE tax.

Would >YOU< care to explain how that is possible?

A regressive tax PLUS a flat tax == a progressive tax.

Feel free to explain this. He couldn't. Then he ran away.
New Don't bother DK...
He apparently has a bug up his ass about me.

It must be love.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Don't bother DK...
He apparently has a bug up his ass about me.

It must be love.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Yeah...sure...
Bail.

Since it was >Ben< of >Ben< & Jerry...I'd say its safe to say that >his< morality and ethics are present in the company.

You say the company can be separated from the people that run it. Considering that runs counter to EVERY FUCKING POST I'VE MADE HERE...we'll let you have your fun.

Corporations are no more moral nor ethical than the people who run them. That has been and will continue to be my point. And since that is what I think...then the actions of a founder and officer of the company certainly have bearing on what I think of that company. Official statements notwithstanding.

And since you can't seem to back the assertions you made in every post subsequent to the initial B&J post...well...its alright to be afraid. Especially when you're wrong.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New *SCORE*
Since it was >Ben< of >Ben< & Jerry...I'd say its safe to say that >his< morality and ethics are present in the company.
And that is >EXACTLY< the way you weasel on these things.

No, Ben Cohen is also a PRIVATE citizen.

You're stupid BINARY mind can't handle this.

If Ben has an opinion, it MUST be the opinion of his company (what about Jerry's opinion)?
New Somebody needs to lighten up and get laid.
You are much too tense.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
New Whatever.
My binary mind? I've been very consistent in this point. A corporation is no more good or evil than the people that run it.

So, you moron, there really is no difference to me between the statement of >Ben< of Ben&Jerry's...and Ben&Jerry's. I don't support the actions of a company founder. Thus, I don't support the company. Very simple POV. Sorry you don't understand.

In addition, the signature of Ben Cohen, the man, was conveniently explained on the petition....Ben Cohen of Ben&Jerry's Ice Cream.

So if it was Ben Cohen >the man<...why did he add "of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream"?

But thats ok. You made 3 completely unrelated statements that you cannot answer for. So now you invent this scheme. Its ok. Really. You can be wrong.

Even with the "game" you were wrong...because if you would have taken any time to bother reading my posts about corporate behavior, you would have known my position already.

Hope you had fun.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Weasel weasel weasel....
A corporation is no more good or evil than the people that run it.
Since a corporation doesn't really exist, how could it more evil than the people in it?

BUT! A corporation allows the small amounts of "evil" to be consolidated in large amouts of "evil" (or "good" for that matter).


So, you moron, there really is no difference to me between the statement of >Ben< of Ben&Jerry's...and Ben&Jerry's.
I understand that. And that is where YOU are WRONG. But, as always, you have a problem admitting that.

Allow me to illustrate this more fully.

Did B&J give money to free him?
No.

Did B&J provide any support for his cause?
No.

Did B&J do ANYTHING AT ALL to IN ANY WAY help this guy?
No.

So, no matter what Ben Cohen did AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, B&J did nothing.

And that is where your binary logic breaks down.

Ben Cohen did something.

Therefore, B&J has those ethics.

But there is no tangible proof OF ANY SORT that B&J, in ANY WAY supports that cause.

But that doesn't matter to YOU.

Because Ben is the "B" in "B&J", that means that "B&J" as the same ethics as Ben.

And this makes sense to you.

I don't support the actions of a company founder. Thus, I don't support the company. Very simple POV.
Yep. Very simple. Very binary. Just as I've been saying.

Sorry you don't understand.
And I keep telling you that I do understand. You're operating in binary mode, again. It's very simple to see.

But you can't accept that you were incorrect about B&J contributing money to that cause.

That's your problem, Bill. One of many.

As for those other statements that I can't answer for........................

Do you know what the "fishing" is? How about "fly fishing"?

The "fly" is NOT a real fly. It is NOT something that is good for the fish.

It is a "lure". It is "fake". It is used to "hook" the fish.

Those posts were "lures" and you were the "fish".

I don't have to answer to the fish because I'm using a "fly" that isn't as yummy in reality as it looked before you swallowed it. I just hook the fish and cook it.

You've been lured, hooked, filleted and cooked.
New The officers of Enron thank you for your support!
Enron, the company, never gave any politician any money. Civic-minded officers and PACs did that.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New Why oh why oh why.
You'd be correct.

>IF< none of the money was from Enron's budgets. Only from the paychecks of the individuals involved.

Now, a trivia question. What other systems/agencies utilize a system similar to this?
New Re: Why oh why oh why.
Companies expect their upper management to be "civic-minded" and use some of their wealth in "positive" ways. That's one reason they are paid so well. The pay comes with "responsibilities".

To some degree it happens to all employees. Ever see the gentle coercion in a United Way campaign at a large firm? I can imagine what goes on in corporate management meetings.

On the trivia question: State employees, for one, are often "encouraged" to support the re-election of their agency head or else the person who appointed him/her.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New I'm so happy for you.
You apparently are enjoying yourself.

Good.

I'm not surprised you cannot understand my POV. Applying your binary style to it doesn't work.

Ben supports a position that I do not. Ben will manage the company according to his beliefs. Thus the company will be managed in a way contrary to my beliefs.

It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference...because the corporation itself is NOTHING without the people who run it. Just a legal document in a file cabinet in Delaware or some other state.

Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend.

As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim.

It sure looks to me like a cop out.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Hey, I'm not the one with the problem.
You're the one who has to be manipulated into admitting that an OBVIOUSLY incorrect statement you made is incorrect.

Then you weasel around it by claiming that the "ethics" of ONE of the people in the company are the "ethics" of that company.

Even when I've shown you that B&J did NOT give money to or any support to them.

And you accuse ME of being "binary"?

Sorry, but YOU are the one who cannot see Ben's company and Ben's personal life as two distinctly different items.

But, once again, you'll never admit that you're wrong.

Even though you can't show that B&J's ever gave money to them (as you originally claimed).
Nor did they give any other support to them.

But none of that matters to you 'cause you KNOW you're right and ONE signature by ONE person in that company (acting as a private citizen) is the "ethics" of that company.

Live your life whatever way you want to. Those of us without your binary limitations can see that such is not the case.

Of course, you will also claim that I have that binary limitation (doesn't "binary" mean "two states" or something?) even when I can see B&J as a company distinct from Ben and distinct from Jerry (wow. I see three states, Ben, Jerry and Ben & Jerry's).

You see two states. Ben's ethics == Ben & Jerry's ethics.
What about Jerry? Oh, your binary mind can't handle a third state so you can't even consider him.

It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference...
Exactly. You operate in a purely binary mode. You CAN'T see any difference. This is a psychological limitation on your part. You can't see that there's a Jerry in Ben & Jerry's. You can't see that there is a COMPANY that is NOT Ben. All you see is Ben and Not-Ben. Like I said, binary.

Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend.
Ummm, I seem to be the one telling >YOU< that the company is distinct from Ben. You seem to be the one who is unable to comprehend that.

Like I said, you originally claimed that B&J's gave money to that cause. That is easily shown to be incorrect. Now you weasel about how Ben's ethics are B&J's ethics. Completely disregarding Jerry's (the "J" in B&J's) ethics not to mention the ethics of every other person in that company.

Again, because your binary mind can only see Ben and not-Ben. There is no partial-Ben or Ben's-company-he-started-with-Jerry.

As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim.
I hope they do. Otherwise, they're mindless sheep. For reference, look at how this thread is right-shifting compared to the other. You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread.

Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong. Instead you have to abuse semantics to get to a position that you can blame on me.

Sorry, dude. You were wrong. B&J did NOT give money to "free" any "cop killer". That is a fact.

You were wrong.

Now you're arguing over whether B&J's "ethics" are the same as someone who signed a petition in support of another trial for a convicted cop killer.

Why?

Ethics are NOTHING without actions.

And there have been NO actions from B&J in support of him.

But that does NOT MATTER TO >YOU<! Because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT!

Whatever.

You'll eventually right-shift this to the point where you will accuse me of being immature and then you'll run away again.

And you will not have learned anything. I'll lure you again. And again. And again.
New say what?
legally B&J is distinct from Ben and Gerry individuals.
Why are corporations formed?
to protect individuals from personal liability.
B&J protects Ben and Gerry from actions taken by B&J the company=Ben and Gerry the individual shield B&J the company from personal liability.
One of the individual's likes cop killers!=B&J likes cop killers
B&J as an artificially created legal entity cannot like or dislike anything, it is amoral.
Ben and Gerry (whichever one contributed) is immoral (for sake of argument)
the company being amoral is being run by immoral
amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=?
punt
thanx,
bill

"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
New Um, okay. "What".
Practially complete agreement right up to the end....

amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=?
As this assumes only one person has influence in that company and is completely immoral.

Which brings us back to my earlier statement that a corporation allows lots of people to do a little "evil" (or "good") and results in the corporation doing a LOT of "evil" (or "good").

In other words:
amoral(neutral(0))+((total "evil" actions by employees)+(total "good" actions by employees))=?

Corrections?
New thats fine
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
New Are you even trying anymore?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29051|Your words]
You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread.

Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
Expand Edited by drewk Feb. 20, 2002, 11:47:52 AM EST
New Clarification.
As I stated in an earlier post, Bill will admit he's wrong on one point, if he thinks he can get me on another point.

Which was why I was feeding him the lure about a re-trial.

Once I told him that was a lure, he switched back to his standard abuse of semantics to show that he was "right" when he said that B&J's ethics support a cop killer (through monetary donations).

To rephrase, Bill can only admit he's "wrong" if he can show that I am "more wrong".

If he cannot show that I am "more wrong", then he will abuse semantics to show that he is "right".

Again, Bill admitted he was wrong in the other thread (when he thought he could catch me on something else) but denies he is wrong in this thread (where he cannot catch me on something else).

Similar to the tax thing. Sales taxes are regressive but sales taxes are progressive (accourding to Bill). Do you care to address that, yet?
New Sure...
...but, you know, the first step to recovery is recognition.

Your lack of understanding of my position is not my problem.

The "other" situation is also your problem. Because you are using terminology over intention. Its the same tactic you have used in many debates here. Use charged language make the discussion into more than it is. Then claim "victory" because the point has grown beyond the first post.

Also not my problem.

You call my thought process binary...yet you continue to try and force my position into "Its either A or B".

So, you see, we're back to the first line in my post.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New B & J are eeeeevil!
Have you ever looked at the fat content on their ice cream? Their New York Super Fudge Chunk is probably going to send me to an early grave. And it tastes so good I can't quit. I'm addicted. I'm just a working stiff that's being exploited.

But then again, I work for one of those evil corps. so if B & J can knock me off they're probably doing the world a favor.

However, if I'm not around, I can't spend my evil corp. paycheck on their ice cream. That would be bad too. The world is so complicated...
Ray
New Ben and Jerry's is GONE.
     Corporations and evil - (JayMehaffey) - (99)
         Thanks for cutting through the bull. -NT - (Silverlock) - (3)
             Figures you'd say that. -NT - (marlowe) - (1)
                 Nickel. -NT - (Silverlock)
             Bull? BULL???? My posts were NOT BULL!!! -NT - (mmoffitt)
         But does it have to be that way? - (Brandioch) - (37)
             I love those ethics. - (bepatient) - (34)
                 Jawohl! - (Brandioch) - (33)
                     You obviously know zero about this case..(added link) - (bepatient) - (32)
                         Hmmmmm, maybe you're right. - (Brandioch) - (31)
                             A jury did settle it. - (bepatient) - (30)
                                 I've read the case. - (Brandioch) - (29)
                                     So... - (bepatient) - (28)
                                         Just giving you enough rope. - (Brandioch) - (27)
                                             Answer the question. - (bepatient) - (26)
                                                 You're just hanging yourself higher. - (Brandioch) - (25)
                                                     Childish little prick - (drewk) - (8)
                                                         how do you know he's little ? ]:-> -NT - (boxley)
                                                         You can quote, but you lack understanding. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                             You don't need to be manipulated - (drewk) - (5)
                                                                 Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                     Oh, no wonder you're so upset - (drewk) - (3)
                                                                         Let's go over that again. - (Brandioch)
                                                                         Don't bother DK... - (bepatient)
                                                                         Don't bother DK... - (bepatient)
                                                     Yeah...sure... - (bepatient) - (15)
                                                         *SCORE* - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                             Somebody needs to lighten up and get laid. - (Silverlock)
                                                             Whatever. - (bepatient) - (12)
                                                                 Weasel weasel weasel.... - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                     The officers of Enron thank you for your support! - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                                                         Why oh why oh why. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                             Re: Why oh why oh why. - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                     I'm so happy for you. - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                                         Hey, I'm not the one with the problem. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                             say what? - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                 Um, okay. "What". - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                     thats fine -NT - (boxley)
                                                                             Are you even trying anymore? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                 Clarification. - (Brandioch)
                                                                             Sure... - (bepatient)
             B & J are eeeeevil! - (rsf)
             Ben and Jerry's is GONE. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Mom & Pop shops too? - (rsf) - (2)
             Thank you for that. One point down. -NT - (bepatient)
             That depends - (JayMehaffey)
         So... - (bepatient) - (13)
             Just more sympathetic magic - (Ric Locke) - (11)
                 Your making my point for me - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
                     Evil is as evil does - (nking) - (7)
                         I wouldn't have said it quite that way - (wharris2)
                         Re: Evil is as evil does - (Ric Locke) - (5)
                             Then it is the evil managers - (nking)
                             Trying to set some basis - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                                 Relativism - (Ric Locke) - (2)
                                     Re: Relativism - (JayMehaffey)
                                     Interesting. - (Brandioch)
                     Evil is as evil does - (nking)
                     What acts in an evil manner? - (marlowe)
             Re: So... - (JayMehaffey)
         Another "by that logic" - (wharris2) - (28)
             How many times must I hammer this - (JayMehaffey) - (27)
                 I must have overlooked it - (wharris2) - (24)
                     If you get scared you must overlook it, besides you knew - (nking) - (23)
                         Norm, you gotta get over this... - (hnick) - (22)
                             Did you even bother to read my posts - (nking) - (2)
                                 Re: Did you even bother to read my posts - (hnick) - (1)
                                     Reform! - (nking)
                             Interesting phrasing there. - (Brandioch) - (5)
                                 Hmmmm interesting! - (nking)
                                 Hmmm - (rsf) - (3)
                                     We seem to have come full circle - back to the daleross(?) - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Not as stoichastic as you suggest... - (hnick) - (1)
                                             Allow me to clarify. - (Brandioch)
                             I think you've hit on the REAL problem... - (jb4) - (12)
                                 Once that may have been true - (Silverlock) - (3)
                                     Sadly, I believe you are correct. - (hnick) - (2)
                                         Putting the cart before the horse - (jb4) - (1)
                                             Ok, you have a point - (hnick)
                                 Now this may sound silly - (nking) - (7)
                                     And your point is...? - (jb4) - (5)
                                         My point, dear JB, - (nking) - (4)
                                             Not necessarily true - (rsf) - (3)
                                                 What you fail to mention... - (jb4) - (2)
                                                     I know, I know... - (rsf) - (1)
                                                         At the very least - (nking)
                                     And your point is...? - (jb4)
                 Must you hammer this??? - (folkert) - (1)
                     The part I was hammering - (JayMehaffey)
         Setting aside their personal morality for the company? - (marlowe) - (6)
             been there done that - (boxley) - (5)
                 'Evil' Corporations..? - (Ashton) - (4)
                     Arguing over definitions again, I think - (Silverlock) - (3)
                         No, "Evil" fits - (Ric Locke) - (1)
                             Seconded in spades. - (Ashton)
                         Since a corporation by legal definition is an - (boxley)
         After a long pause, my reply... - (screamer) - (3)
             The kudos always go to those who - (Ashton)
             Mostly I agree - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 It's a love fest then... - (screamer)

A:>_
360 ms