Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.


Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
–wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
–wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?



Can you quote any of his irrational statements?


I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.


But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
-wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
-wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?


Wrong.



But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

Talk about the pot and the kettle...

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

"mike regish" wrote in message
...

Talk about the pot and the kettle...


We can if you wish.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:19:15 -0500, "mike regish"
wrote in ::

Talk about the pot and the kettle...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.


I haven't found Mr. McNicoll to be irrational in the years I've been
reading his articles posted to this newsgroup. I'd characterize him
as often pedantic, but usually quite lucid and logical.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:10:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
-wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
-wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?


Wrong.



But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?


I didn't.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:45:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?


I didn't.


If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


First you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Message-ID: et

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me
to do a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment,
dissenting, perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational
enough from what I read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of
wacky.


Can you quote any of his irrational statements?


I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you
can easily examine the site yourself.


Clearly the topic is Churchill's "irrational" statements.


-------------------------------------------

Then you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Message-ID: . net

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
-wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
-wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly
eccentric" aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational.
Right?


Wrong.


[]
[ Can you quote any of his irrational statements?]
[]
[]
[I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you]
[can easily examine the site yourself.]


But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational,
not those [of] Churchill's statements that you feel are
irrational.


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to
be irrational.
-------------------------------

Now the subject of your last sentence clearly refers to me not
Churchill, despite your contention to the contrary.

Is it because you are unwilling or unable to support your contention
that Churchill's statements are crazy or irrational, that you resort
to unsupportable and libelous invective?



Here's a little quote for you:

What ever became of logic and reason and, maybe most important,
courtesy? I’m talking about the ability to debate a topic using
facts and a constructive argument while avoiding the cutesy
nicknames, innuendoes and inevitably, the personal insult. Does
anyone but me recall the days when the word argument meant a
challenging conversational exercise on the merits of an issue.
-- Ed Rasimus

http://thundertales.blogspot.com/200...-discourse.htm

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.

Given the content of these articles:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3617513.story
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...s/eichmann.htm

You may be correct.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.

Given the content of these articles:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3617513.story

For me the most important and most telling questions from the beginning
have been not revolved around whether Churchill was wacky or not, but
rather about what we're to think about the intellectual caliber or
intellectual stature of a field of study -- Ethnic Studies -- in which
someone like Churchill can become not merely a tenured professor but a
department chair?!?

(Not to mention the intellectual standards of a university in which this
can happen . . . )