BATTING A THOUSAND

9/12/01 | Michael Rivero

[mlo]

You use "shill" and other words against people who disagree with you. You start with the assumption that your conspiracies are revealed truth and so anyone that argues otherwise is trying to "silence" the truth. You are wrong. We want the truth to be known, we just don't agree with YOU about what the truth is. If both sides would simply take that fact to heart the discussions would be a lot more civil.

[FormerLurker]

You use "shill" and other words against people who disagree with you.

I only use the word shill when I've been attacked personally. In civil discussions I don't use the word.

You start with the assumption that your conspiracies are revealed truth and so anyone that argues otherwise is trying to "silence" the truth.

I only post what I consider to be facts. And those facts are based upon news articles or other credible documentation. If I reply to a post, I do sometimes give an opinion, just like everybody else. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me on my opinion, but find it frustrating when I have to argue facts. When someone is posting non-facts without source documentation tells me I'm wrong about my facts, I have to wonder where this person is coming from.

You are wrong. We want the truth to be known, we just don't agree with YOU about what the truth is. If both sides would simply take that fact to heart the discussions would be a lot more civil.

mlo, I hadn't even mentioned your name, but you refer to yourself as "we". So you identify with the crowd I had been refering to, and that is what I mean. If I argue with one of you, I soon find myself arguing with many of you. That is what turns the heat up on some discussions, especially if one of "you" are being uncivil.

How about in the future, we ALL try to remain civil, and if there is a question of fact, find some source documentation to prove your point?