Terry West's defense

[Bob Lechtreck]

Been away for a few days. I decided that Terry's brain, like Clinton's
labido, needed a rest.

At 10:48 AM 8/21/98 -0600, Terry West wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
At least wake up and try to turn on your brain before speaking.
On 20 Aug 1998, you drivelled:
>>>>>>>>>>

Compelling. Way to go Terry.

>>>>>>>>>>
No.  The issue is relevance.  "Big fat stupid" are relevant adjectives
if I'm trying to protray myself as a handsome little fellow.  I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>

And Paula Jones was not trying to portray herself as a virgin, just a womyn
who was harrassed. So what was it, again, that destroys her claim.... oh
yeah, she was a nude model. It seems that you don't believe nude models who
align with Robertson can be sexually harrassed. Now, accuse me of taking
THAT out of context.

>>>>>>>>>>
As for the stupid part, you can lose that debate too fella.
>>>>>>>>>>

Well, not so far, but I guess it's possible.

>>>>>>>>>>
In Jones' case, she tried to falsely portray herself as the "innocent
victim" of
savage behavior, trotting out with the religion fascists.
>>>>>>>>>>

So AGAIN you assume she can't be an innocent victim of savage behavior. Now,
why was that again???

>>>>>>>>>>
Why don't you at least make a half-assed effort to actually deal with the
argument instead of trying your usual shift/obfuscate tactics?  Well, I know
why. . ..
>>>>>>>>>>

Well, so do I. It's because you don't MAKE the "argument" until later. The
paragraph in question only makes the BOLD statement that she was a nude
model and that she ALSO aligned with the CC (although they were in different
sentences). Your "argument" only comes to fruition AFTER you are caught in
your hypocracy, and take a revisionist stance.

>>>>>>>>>>
Anita Hill didn't show up for the press conference with Al Sharpton.
Or even Jesse Jackson.
>>>>>>>>>>

No, she showed up on the coattails of that paragon of morality and
femminism, Teddy Kennedy.

>>>>>>>>>>
Do people from Bakersfield always have this much trouble finding an analogy
that actually fits?
>>>>>>>>>>

Not at all. Do people from Cedar City always have trouble distinguishing
between a question and an analogy. It does explain a lot though. You see,
Terry, a question is ended with a question mark, such as the type you would
find at the end of my question.

>>>>>>>>>>
It's you folks on the GOP side who have the hypocrisy problem.
>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah right. We're seeing a great example of that I think.

>>>>>>>>>>
Same people who shamelessly attacked Hill swallowed everything Jones said
with no critical response whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>

I attacked Ms. Hill for waiting 10 years before coming forward with the
charges. If she really felt harrassed, why wait? And as far as Justice
Thomas was concerned, I said that if he was guilty of harrassment, that he
should NOT be confirmed. I fail to see how that is hypocracy.

>>>>>>>>>>
Your continuing with this disgusting line in spite of my numerous
posts explaining in terms that a five-year-old should be able to
understand the difference between the Jones civil accusation and a
rape case is now evidence that you have all the ethics of a stray cat.
>>>>>>>>>>

Boy, now THAT'S the pot calling the kettle a kitchen utensil. The fact that
you make a LOUSY statement and then try to cover it up by revising your post
to claim what you MEANT to say instead of what you said shows me the same
ethics you accuse me of.

>>>>>>>>>>
I am ceasing any communication with or response to you as of this
post.
>>>>>>>>>>

Good, then I can finally put away my dictionary of revisionist terms......

>>>>>>>>>>
You are deliberately misrepresenting my posts and are refusing to undertake
the actual arguments involved.
>>>>>>>>>>

Never said I disagreed with the "argument" you eventually made, only the way
you attempted to make it (or so you say).

Why is it that YOU want to make your "argument" the issue and avoid the VERY
real language you used?

>>>>>>>>>>
How dare you even question the ethics of Clinton or anyone else, given the huge
beam in your own eye.
>>>>>>>>>>

Terry comes up with YET another way to avoid responsibility for his actions,
indignation. Perhaps Clinton can use this tactic to get out of his
predicament. Good move Terry. Not very compelling, but imaginative.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"