Oh, you mean like the 2000 election...

OK, here's how its normally done:

Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.

Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

Here's what happens in a BeeP thread:

BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.

Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact.

Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject.

BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

Rinse. Repeat.

Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed.

Post #181,481 by jb4 10/28/04 2:03:55 PM Reply	Oh, you mean like the 2000 election... ...where the Federal government "[put] its nose in places its not supposed to be." Which you roundly hailed at the time, and still do. You mean that Big Government? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,488 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:22:29 PM Reply	Find one I've said the decision made no difference and it didn't. Didn't hail it to my knowledge. You could, of course, produce a post number to back that claim...but I doubt it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,494 by jb4 10/28/04 2:33:46 PM Reply	Result not important, the action is! Please try to stay on topic during any one of these threads, OK? Especially during the workweek, as I only eat Red Herring on alternate Saturdays. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,499 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:38:05 PM Reply	Why are you blaming me? You changed the subject. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,519 by jb4 10/28/04 3:42:48 PM Reply	It's clear now, you don't understand basic rhetoric! OK, here's how its normally done: Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact. Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. Here's what happens in a BeeP thread: BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact. Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact. Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject. BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. Rinse. Repeat. Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,535 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:40:35 PM Reply	Interesting That you were the one making the wild-assed generalization that started this tangent...and then you changed the subject...yet you are blaming me for all of these things. I'm honored to be such a focus of your delusional reality. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!