Actually I don't think thats quiet fair. I would have been glad to accept Rodney's references if they even vaguely supported his assertions. But if you read through the posts you can see that they don't.



When I called him on his rather rediculous assertions he referred me to a newspaper article that in no way supported him. I pointed that you and he did the exact same thing again. I pointed that out aand he claimed iit was just his opinion and he was free, blah, blah, blah.



If one makes outlandish claims they have some responsibility to support them when challenged. Rodney has a history of outlandish claims here, beginning with his assertion that the environemental movement was all started by communists bent on world domination. Making those sorts of public pronouncments makes one suspect in the eyes of rational people of any political persuation. I know some very conservative people including a VP at a large energy utility who laughed when I suggested Rodney's perspective, so its not just a liberal bashing.



Rodney also has a an intense reluctance to accept the fact when he is in error. When I pointed out to him that the unprecidented security for the Bush administration in England was due to the potential terrorist threat, and not the crowds of protestors, he spent paragraph after paragraph trying to restate his answer so that it wasn't complety wrong.



Both of these attributes make a debate with him less than rewarding. Which is why I've decided not to engage him any longer. Although I reserve the right to jab him every once in a while when he makes a particularly crazy claim.



Pulatus

[ Show Entire Thread ]