[extropy-chat] moveon.org

[Brent Neal]

 (9/22/04 15:06) David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

>Brent Neal wrote:
>
>>I wasn't the one who did such conflating, Mike.  You've continuously 
>>assumed that the wingnuts in the SBVFT represented some sort of large 
>>scale 'evidence.'
>
>Did you read and consider in toto _Unfit for Command_ before concluding 
>that they are 'wingnuts,' or are you relying exclusively on other peoples' 
>assessment?
>

Yes, I did.


>Not to pick on you, but it's very depressing to see how rarely most people 
>(of all stripes), even otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable, will look 
>beyond posturing and slogans to freely available source material, such as 
>the text of the Geneva Conventions, a court ruling, a proposed bill, or a 
>complete transcript of remarks.
>

Agreed. It is a problem. Especially with proposed bills. They're usually so long and dense that our Congresscritters won't read them either. 

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein