Well It Was No Cherry Pie...

[crimresearch]

In the interests of being fair and balanced, shouldn't this incident be held in the same light as recent pie throwing assaults?

"A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far."...."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050420/ap_en_ot/fonda_spitter

[TruthSeeker]

It was in his mouth, full of saliva.

That's much worse than pie that hasn't been chewed.

gross.

[crimresearch]

I don't know...pie crusts are made from peanut oil, and you know how bad those peanut allergies can be...

[brodski]

would this be the first case of passive tobacco chewing?

I mean, if people keep this up Jane Fonda could be at an increased risk of cancer in, oh say 20 years so...

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by brodski
would this be the first case of passive tobacco chewing?

I mean, if people keep this up Jane Fonda could be at an increased risk of cancer in, oh say 20 years so...

She was once Ted Turner's Cherry Pie. If that doesn't give you an increased risk of cancer, nothing will.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by crimresearch
In the interests of being fair and balanced, shouldn't this incident be held in the same light as recent pie throwing assaults?

I can't see any difference, except that the spit seems to be an escalation from pie/salad dressing/eggs, and righties are now getting into it.

At least nobody is throwing urine or feces.

Yet.

[crimresearch]

Shhhhhh!! The monkeys are everywhere...

[brodski]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I can't see any difference, except that the spit seems to be an escalation from pie/salad dressing/eggs, and righties are now getting into it.

At least nobody is throwing urine or feces.

Yet.

The Brittish can teach Americans a thing or two abbout how these situatutions should be handled.

It's the only language they understand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/video/_1334992_elec06_thomas_vi.ram)

full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1335000/1335927.stm)

[crimresearch]

OK, before this thread gets moved to Humor by some puritanical mod, where are the limits on honest disagreement?

In the Commentary forum, I defended the right to be 'rude' to someone by refusing to shake their hand, just as I defended Randi's right to use the Benjamin Franklin quote about lying.

And I fully condone, and have taken part in less passive protests, such as marches, attempting to deliver a petition directly to the Governor's house, picketing, and boycotts.
All of those were calculated to bring attention to our cause, and specificaly, unfavorable attention to our opponents.

Giant papier mache caricatures of people are certainly not calculated to make friends with the targets.

And neither are spitting, pie throwing, or escalation to more aggressive acts.

But I have a hard time justifying the latter examples in the current context.

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

But it would never occur to me to get physical about it.

[brodski]

If you really must get serious here.
:(
Spitting at some one (especially in the face) is a pretty good way of passing on some fairly nasty diseases, and should therefore (IMHO) be classified as assault. Throwing an egg or a pie is unlikely to result in any real harm, and should therefore not be classified as any more serious than verbal abuse.

To give this an international flavor in the UK any object (no matter how innocent) used in an attack on someone is classified as an "offensive weapon".
If the Deputy Prime Minister had not retaliated against that pikey the assailant would probably have been charged with "assault with an offensive weapon" a more serious crime than simple assault.

[Darat]

Originally posted by crimresearch


...snip...

But it would never occur to me to get physical about it.

I think that is the line, this event caused great amusement in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067513.stm

But it was an assault.

[brodski]

Originally posted by Darat
I think that is the line, this event caused great amusement in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067513.stm

But it was an assault.

Noxious sewage flying though the air towards Kilroy?
Shome Mhistake Shurley?

Sorry I'm just can't take to many of these things seriously.

Actually back on a serious note I would considder that attck on Kilroy assult (all be it well overdue).

Ingestion of slurry can casue damaeg to helth and therefore would fit my defintion of what "should" be assult.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by brodski
Spitting at some one (especially in the face) is a pretty good way of passing on some fairly nasty diseases, and should therefore (IMHO) be classified as assault. Throwing an egg or a pie is unlikely to result in any real harm, and should therefore not be classified as any more serious than verbal abuse.You can classify it as anything you want. But in the law, "the unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact" is called battery and it's a felony in these here parts.

I have no use whatever for Jane Fonda, but what crimresearch said.

[daredelvis]

They all ought to be locked up.
Though, spit is way worse than food (pre-chewed only).

When Ann Coulter came to Tucson she got hit with a pie. The two idiots that did it were "detained" and arrested. She recently wrote a screed about the whole affair. Apparently the charges against the pie throwers were dropped. According to Ann, the local prosecutor, a Democrat, just dropped the charges. Pima County is not a safe place for conservatives. The local rag ran the entire column with a lame feedback question at the end and a note that there was an accompanying story in the local section.
When you read the news story you see that the charges were dropped because neither Ann nor the arresting officer showed up. No mention of this fact in the Coulter column.

I think the paper should have done a better job of pointing out her blatant misstatements. Could the prosecutor sue her for libel???

Story
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/allheadlines/70634.php

Coulter
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/allheadlines/70648.php

Daredelvis

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

If you really wanted to make her hurt, you should shake her hand with a huge friendly smile and say "Wow! What was it like working with a real star like Dolly Parton in 9 to 5?" That would probably give her more pain than mere tobacco juice or a denunciation.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by crimresearch
OK, before this thread gets moved to Humor by some puritanical mod, where are the limits on honest disagreement?


It's civil disobedience, and that's not about legal limits. In spitting on her, he broke the law and should face the consequences.

At the same time, his act of civil disobedience accomplished something. He made the news, and reminded Jane Fonda of why people don't like her.

I suppose what I'm saying is there are more than one line to consider here. He crossed a legal line, he also crossed a line of good manners. In the end, it comes down to if he felt that making this point and getting this attention was worth crossing those lines.

He didn't injure or kill her, but there are many who would cross those lines too.

[bigred]

I wanna buy this guy a beer.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/04/21/people.janefonda.ap/index.html

[crimresearch]

I guess that she won't be accused of making this up down the road a few years.

[Darat]

Merged the two threads.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If you really wanted to make her hurt, you should shake her hand with a huge friendly smile and say "Wow! What was it like working with a real star like Dolly Parton in 9 to 5?" That would probably give her more pain than mere tobacco juice or a denunciation. Close: "Wow! What was it like working with a real star like Dabney Coleman in 9 to 5?"

[Darat]

Or "Have you ever wondered why your father was a great actor but a bad teacher?"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mycroft
It's civil disobedience, and that's not about legal limits. In spitting on her, he broke the law and should face the consequences.

At the same time, his act of civil disobedience accomplished something.

If he tried to leave the scene without getting arrested, then it is not civil disobedience.....

[Beerina]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

I went to see "Agnes of God" because a chick I was interested in wanted to go see it.

Never did get any.

[crimresearch]

I was thinking more of her bogus health and fitness industry...

[brodski]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You can classify it as anything you want. But in the law, "the unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact" is called battery and it's a felony in these here parts.


I was not attempting to make a legal argument here, I was intening to try and draw a moral line somewhere between legitmate protest and "assult" (in its wider definition).

I still hold the view that pie throwing may be a legitmate form of portest, intending to humillate the victim with no real possibility of harm. Spitting howeaver is a differnt matter.
I am well aware that the law in most (all?) places does not agree with me.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by brodski:

I still hold the view that pie throwing may be a legitmate form of portest, intending to humillate the victim with no real possibility of harm.

I'd need to know what you mean by "legitimate" before accepting this.

Are you suggesting that if you were the author at a book-signing and several people began throwing pies and threatened to throw more that security personnel and the police should stand by because it's "legitimate?"

[crimresearch]

I'm guessing they mean legitimate in the same sense that tea into Boston Harbor, or crossing the bridge in Selma, or sitting at the Woolworths in Greeensboro, or the handful of salt at Dandi were legitimate..even though laws were broken.

[brodski]

Originally posted by Garrette
I'd need to know what you mean by "legitimate" before accepting this.

Are you suggesting that if you were the author at a book-signing and several people began throwing pies and threatened to throw more that security personnel and the police should stand by because it's "legitimate?"

I believe that the legitimacy of an action of protest is directly proportional to harm it is trying to prevent.

Of course I will now be challenged to weigh differing "harms" against each other, but I wont attempt to do that until challenged :D

In the example you pose, I would argue that this should be dealt with by laws designed to "keep the peace", and these actions are an order of magnitude lower than actions which will cause physical harm.

Protestors in a liberal democracy should expect police action against them which is proportionate to their crimes.

I wont attempt legal definitions here as we are debating across a number of legal jurisdictions

[Tmy]

While posing on that cannon was a boneheaded move, doesnt history show us that Fonda was right to protest Nam!?!?

Who thinks Nam was a good idea?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
...I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities..."Thoroughly despicable?" Must be some amazing offense(s) she's committed....and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology...A mind-reader, are you? She's explained her position and apologized before. Many times. The biography merely repeats the story....to keep her talentless career in the headlines.Now I know you're just funnin'.And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...WTF?I was thinking more of her bogus health and fitness industry...Oh. Okay. Wow.

[crimresearch]

I myself find anorexia, bulimia, obesity, body image disorders and so forth to NOT be a source of amusement.

You of course, are free to view them any way you wish.

The only difference between her and faith healers IMHO, is that she used the celebrity of her family name to peddle her quack books and videos, and to sell the false hope to sick people that they too could look just like her, while she knew that her physique was the result of binging and purging.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly *would* Fonda have to do before you would stop being her apologist?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I myself find anorexia, bulimia, obesity, body image disorders and so forth to NOT be a source of amusement.And Jane "Thoroughly Despicable" Fonda is responsible for that hyperbolic list, how?You of course, are free to view them any way you wish.Merely asking you to detail your stance.The only difference between her and faith healers IMHO, is that she used the celebrity of her family name to peddle her quack books and videos, and to sell the false hope to sick people that they too could look just like her, while she knew that her physique was the result of binging and purging.I'm not aware of that latter claim. Of course, even if true, one can't dismiss every aspect of the woman's efforts. Unless one has a hard-on for her to begin with.

Oh, and as for her "quack books and videos," are you suggesting that if I went and looked I would find no medical, nutritional, or other qualified advisors to the programs?Just out of curiosity, what exactly *would* Fonda have to do before you would stop being her apologist? Apologist? And when have you stopped beating your wife?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by daredelvis
They all ought to be locked up.
Though, spit is way worse than food (pre-chewed only).

When Ann Coulter came to Tucson she got hit with a pie. The two idiots that did it were "detained" and arrested. She recently wrote a screed about the whole affair. Apparently the charges against the pie throwers were dropped. According to Ann, the local prosecutor, a Democrat, just dropped the charges. Pima County is not a safe place for conservatives. The local rag ran the entire column with a lame feedback question at the end and a note that there was an accompanying story in the local section.
When you read the news story you see that the charges were dropped because neither Ann nor the arresting officer showed up. No mention of this fact in the Coulter column.

I think the paper should have done a better job of pointing out her blatant misstatements. Could the prosecutor sue her for libel???



Story
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/allheadlines/70634.php

Coulter
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/allheadlines/70648.php

Daredelvis

IIRC both pies missed the target. 2 and Oh.

Here's Ann's rebuttal FWIW:
I was never asked to attend any trial. Are crime victims in Pima County typically required to pester prosecutors with endless "When's the trial?" phone calls? This trial received even less publicity than my recent speaking engagement at the school. I didn't even get one of those "haven't heard from you lately" postcards the publisher sends after you let a magazine subscription lapse.

The need for a prosecutor to call me as a witness still seems completely absurd in light of the in-living-color videotape of the entire assault, vividly showing each element of the crime. But if called by the prosecutor, I would attend the trial with relish. I can't wait to see if the defendants will try the novel "guy who throws like a girl" defense.


PIES, LIES & VIDEOTAPE (http://www.anncoulter.com/)
The link is the home page, which changes from time to time, there is a story archive on the site.

[crimresearch]

"I'm not aware of that latter claim. Of course, even if true, one can't dismiss every aspect of the woman's efforts. Unless one has a hard-on for her to begin with."

What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.

Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims....
Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.
:rolleyes:


Keep on goosestepping Nick.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by brodski:

I believe that the legitimacy of an action of protest is directly proportional to harm it is trying to prevent.

Agreed.


Originally posted by brodski:

Of course I will now be challenged to weigh differing "harms" against each other, but I wont attempt to do that until challenged

I won’t challenge you to do so as long as you recognize that the need to do so is ultimately there.

But I’m really not trying to be either nitpicky or pedantic.


Originally posted by brodski:

In the example you pose, I would argue that this should be dealt with by laws designed to "keep the peace", and these actions are an order of magnitude lower than actions which will cause physical harm.

Okay.


Originally posted by brodski:

Protestors in a liberal democracy should expect police action against them which is proportionate to their crimes.

Agreed.


Originally posted by brodski:

I wont attempt legal definitions here as we are debating across a number of legal jurisdictions

Okay. I’m not really interested in legal parsing anyway.


What I take from all this is that you think the following:

1. Pie throwing in this instance would have been appropriate if the thrower accepted the legal consequences

2. Non-violent intervention by police or security forces to stop the pie thrower would have been acceptable

3. Tobacco spitting crossed the line of legitimacy but still merited only non-violent intervention


This, btw, is my own position on this. Apologies if I am mistaken in ascribing it to you.

[brodski]

Originally posted by Garrette

What I take from all this is that you think the following:

1. Pie throwing in this instance would have been appropriate if the thrower accepted the legal consequences

2. Non-violent intervention by police or security forces to stop the pie thrower would have been acceptable

3. Tobacco spitting crossed the line of legitimacy but still merited only non-violent intervention


This, btw, is my own position on this. Apologies if I am mistaken in ascribing it to you.

I think you have summed up my position nicely.
Thanks :D

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I'm not aware of that latter claim. Of course, even if true, one can't dismiss every aspect of the woman's efforts. Unless one has a hard-on for her to begin with.Originally posted by crimresearch
What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.The religious right. Would that be me?

Well, you learn something new every day.Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims....No. I'm not aware of any claims of or supporting evidence for Jane Fonda's physique having been the "result of binging and purging." Why? For the same reason I'm not aware of what underarm deodorant you occasionally get around to using: the info hasn't popped up on my radar, and I haven't been all that interested in investigating in the first place.

You made the claim that Jane Fonda is "thoroughly despicable" for being "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women." You'll need to back that up with more than an attack on my "religious right" "mentality."Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.Wanna know what's true? A statement that can be supported with sufficient and compelling evidence. Your spouting of anti-Jane Fonda rhetoric may make you a righteous hero to some. All I'd like to see are some facts.:rolleyes:

Keep on goosestepping Nick. And yet your quiver contains none, it seems.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Garrette
2. Non-violent intervention by police or security forces to stop the pie thrower would have been acceptable.

1) What is 'non-violent' intervention?

2) If a security detail allows someone to throw something at the person they are protecting, and afterwards they have no good answer* for the question "How did you know it was a pie, and not a grenade?" then they should be fired and replaced with a security detail that will stop the security breach. If the bodyguards restrain themselves because what looked like it might be 'only salad dressing' from a right-wing nutball turns out to be acid from a fundamentalist islamic nutball who objects to Fonda's fitness/beauty past, then restraint is going to look pretty stupid in hindsight.

*A good answer might be "He wasn't carrying anything, spitting was a completely unexpected assault"

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Oh, and as for her "quack books and videos," are you suggesting that if I went and looked I would find no medical, nutritional, or other qualified advisors to the programs?Well, a quick Google turns up one such person: Daniel Kosich, PH.D.One of the leading authorities on fitness, weight management and nutrition. Daniel Kosich is President of EXERFIT Lifestyle Consulting in Denver. With a Ph.D. in exercise physiology from BYU and formerly on the faculty in exercise science at the University of Maine, Dr. Koisch is the author of GET REAL: A Personal Guide to Real-life Weight Management, contributing editor for Shape and technical advisor from New Woman. Dr. Koisch, former Program Director for Jane Fonda Workout, is a chapter author for the American Council on Exercise's Personal Trainer Manual & Lifestyle & Weight Management Consultant Manual. He is the technical advisor for more than 25 video exercise programs and is frequent presenter at international fitness conferences and author of numerous articles on fitness and health. Daniel serves on the advisory board at Results Plus.Shall I expect another rolleyes smilie from you?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Well, a quick Google turns up one such person: Daniel Kosich, PH.D.Shall I expect another rolleyes smilie from you? A different sort of medical knowledge (http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/liver/bile.html) may be required in order to understand your correspondent RK. ;)

[brodski]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
1) What is 'non-violent' intervention?


Attempst to restrain, without teh intnention of causing actual physical harm to the assailent.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by aerocontrols:

1) What is 'non-violent' intervention?

brodski is correct.

I used to be a trainer for non-violent intervention. It is not always appropriate and does not always work, but against a pie-thrower whose only intent is probably escape and not injury it most likely would.


Originally posted by aerocontrols:

2) If a security detail allows someone to throw something at the person they are protecting, and afterwards they have no good answer* for the question "How did you know it was a pie, and not a grenade?" then they should be fired and replaced with a security detail that will stop the security breach.

Possibly, but this is another question altogether.


Originally posted by aerocontrols:

If the bodyguards restrain themselves because what looked like it might be 'only salad dressing' from a right-wing nutball turns out to be acid from a fundamentalist islamic nutball who objects to Fonda's fitness/beauty past, then restraint is going to look pretty stupid in hindsight.

Yet in my experience, restraining before the fact for what is probably just salad dressing is legally discouraged.

It comes down to risk assessment and formulation of responses to threats based on their likelihood.


Originally posted by aerocontrols:

*A good answer might be "He wasn't carrying anything, spitting was a completely unexpected assault"

Yes.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"I'm not aware of that latter claim. Of course, even if true, one can't dismiss every aspect of the woman's efforts. Unless one has a hard-on for her to begin with."

What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.

Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims....
Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.
:rolleyes:

Keep on goosestepping Nick. Pardon me for flogging this, but your posts are so antithetical to skepticism and reasoned debate that it's positively mind-boggling.

You could do the skeptical movement a big favor by not claiming to be part of it.

Based on past performance, can we expect you to ditch this thread now that you've made a public buffoon of yourself?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by varwoche
Pardon me for flogging this, but your posts are so antithetical to skepticism and reasoned debate that it's positively mind-boggling.

You could do the skeptical movement a big favor by not claiming to be part of it.

Based on past performance, can we expect you to ditch this thread now that you've made a public buffoon of yourself? The gentleman/lady posted this, in response to another, in the "Police handcuffing 5-year old" thread:...Thanks for addressing the issues here with some actual information...as noted, that sort of contribution to the discourse is becoming rare around here, and yours is appreciated...Naturally, I got a kick out it.

[crimresearch]

You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation..

If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.


If you have an honest question, ask it.

If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.

Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.

Not that I'm holding my breath.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation..What are you talking about? What "thoroughly discredited stalker" have I cited?

And how is my reputation in need of "repair?" You are the one who has gone off on a rant vis-a-vis Jane Fonda. I merely questioned your assertions, yet you responded with more vitriol at her as well as me.

ETA: By the way, I don't have a "position" on this matter as of yet (other than a basic belief in fair play). I joined the discussion out of interest in having you detail yours.If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.You're welcome to show me where I've "fabricat[ed] out of context misquotes."If you have an honest question, ask it.I'll wait for you to address my earlier responses to your posts before proceeding.If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.It's up to you to support your assertions. You may first begin with the one where you state that Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...I don't care whether she is or isn't since it has no bearing on your assertions.Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.You have yet to prove this. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Never mind your line of reasoning is a bit daft.Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.What "puerile name calling?" What "projection?" In any event, again, it is not up to me to disprove something you have yet to prove.

And by the way, the last segment of yours quoted above qualifies you for the Ironic Post of the Day Award. Congrats!Not that I'm holding my breath. Better you not attack someone's character--that is, Ms. Fonda's--without justifiable and evidentiary support.

[crimresearch]

Uh-huh

:rolleyes:

You came into a thread that *I* started, in which I asked why people were not criticising the spitting attack on Fonda with the same alacrity as they criticized the recent pie et al. attacks on other celebrities.

If you are too lazy or dishonest to scroll up, here is the entire, unedited first post:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well It Was No Cherry Pie...
In the interests of being fair and balanced, shouldn't this incident be held in the same light as recent pie throwing assaults?

"A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far."...."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...t/fonda_spitter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I posted (Again, unedited):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, before this thread gets moved to Humor by some puritanical mod, where are the limits on honest disagreement?

In the Commentary forum, I defended the right to be 'rude' to someone by refusing to shake their hand, just as I defended Randi's right to use the Benjamin Franklin quote about lying.

And I fully condone, and have taken part in less passive protests, such as marches, attempting to deliver a petition directly to the Governor's house, picketing, and boycotts.
All of those were calculated to bring attention to our cause, and specificaly, unfavorable attention to our opponents.

Giant papier mache caricatures of people are certainly not calculated to make friends with the targets.

And neither are spitting, pie throwing, or escalation to more aggressive acts.

But I have a hard time justifying the latter examples in the current context.

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

But it would never occur to me to get physical about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.

So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.

The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.

On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.

Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

[varwoche]

Crimresearch, need I point out this is a forum that places a high value on evidence? Disjointed, emotionally charged vitriol is no substitute for evidence.

It's a simple request: Will you provide evidence that Jane Fonda was complicit in the death of thousands of women? If not, don't expect to be taken seriously.

But that's not all. I would also like to understand how it is that when a member merely asks you to provide evidence, that member somehow deserves to be called a nazi. ("keep on goosestepping")

Truly bizarre.

You say that I've misquoted you. Please provide a specific so that I can correct the record. I can't correct the record based on a vague assertion.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Uh-huh

:rolleyes:"Uh-huh?" That's your response? (And thanks for the rolleyes smilie; I suspected you'd remain true to form.)You came into a thread that *I* started, in which I asked why people were not criticising the spitting attack on Fonda with the same alacrity as they criticized the recent pie et al. attacks on other celebrities.

If you are too lazy or dishonest to scroll up, here is the entire, unedited first post...Bully for you for starting a thread. Pats on the back all around. However, the original point you were trying to make did not and does not interest me at the moment. Rather, I questioned other remarks you've made further along the thread -- questions you continue to ignore.

Now your defense seems to be that I have taken something out of context. Nonsense. And you know it. This portion of your post:I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'......stands on its own. There is no alternate take that your "context" provides.Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.Really, you're dancing perilously close to incoherence. But I'll attempt to take things one at a time.

I did not "insinuate" anything; I have been asking that you support your statements. And you've yet to comply. Now yes, I gathered that you "had it in for [Ms. Fonda] for other reasons." Why? Because you say so:...I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...Reasons, plural. Since you eliminate her Viet Nam activities from the equation yet still use the plural, that indicates to me that, along with her fitness industry, there are at least three reasonS for your ire.

Your wily little insinuation that I have yet to provide evidence gave me a jolly laugh. It's been right there from the start in your own words!So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.I almost feel sorry for you, wiggling on the hook as you are. Look, you initiated a statement or a claim, then I called you on it. The next step is for you to provide evidence for your statement or claim, not for me to debate points you've not made to any sufficient degree. An illustration:

Mr. A: Mustangs get lousy mileage.

Mr. B: Really? Which model/engine are you referring to? Which year? And can you provide the mileage figure under discussion?

Mr. A: Prove they don't!

You see, we're still at the "Mr. B" stage. You have not addressed the basic questions, instead muddying the waters further by such tactics as evasion and off-topic (born-again Christian?) ramblings.The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.The "fac" is that you have not provided quote one from Jane Fonda in regard to whatever offense you have charged her with. So you see, I can't "refuse" to see something I haven't seen nor was even aware of in the first place.

First, you have to support your assertion(s). Then we can debate the claim(s). Simple.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by varwoche
...But that's not all. I would also like to understand how it is that when a member merely asks you to provide evidence, that member somehow deserves to be called a nazi. ("keep on goosestepping")

Truly bizarre...Or by asking the poster to support his/her allegations against Ms. Fonda I'm suddenly an apologist for the woman.

Yep, bizarre.

[Regnad Kcin]

My response to your latest neglected to deal with this last portion:Originally posted by crimresearch
On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.What transcripts?! You haven't provided any!

I'll guess it feels all warm and fuzzy to make me out to be a liar when I state I haven't seen nor heard anything on the matter ("professed ignorance of the quotes"), but you are in error.Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind. I'm not "desperately" trying to do anything. Well, apart from nailing you down on your own claims.

[bigred]

Can you guys get a room :rolleyes:

Fonda, tobaccy juice, and vietnam vets, remember? Who gives a flip about her religion?

[crimresearch]

Now yes, I gathered that you "had it in for [Ms. Fonda] for other reasons." Why? Because you say so:

You are losing it..I use the standard figure of speech, and from that you are suddenly a mind reader?

What are you going to spend Randi's million on?

Reasons, plural. Since you eliminate her Viet Nam activities from the equation yet still use the plural, that indicates to me that, along with her fitness industry, there are at least three reasonS for your ire.

Actually, your nitpicking at one letter in a standard figure of speech indicates a severe problem on your end...and requires no 'evidence' from me...
Figures of speech are not neccessarily assertions...even less neccessarily, when filtered though your irrationality.

If that is what you have based all of your rehtoric on, you lost this one before you started it...
'Reasons other than' in no way, shape, or form requires me to follow your bizzare train of logic that I must have meant any specific number...

Now, once more, while you wait for the foaming in your mouth to subside...

'Figure....Of....Speech...'

Got it?

[varwoche]

I'm still not quite clear. complicit in the deaths of thousands of women Was this comment about Fonda a figure of speech, as opposed to a claim that you intend to support? If it's a figure of speech I will drop my inquiry. A simple yes/no will suffice.

And regarding your post addressed to a fellow forum member who asked you to provide evidence: Keep on goosestepping Obviously that was a figure of speech, as I can't imagine you are making a serious assertion that RK is a nazi. (Are you?) Ignoring the civility aspect, can you explain how this figure of speech makes even the vaguest sense in context? Is asking for evidence somehow nazi-like?

Maybe there's a bug in the forum software that is causing posts from unrelated threads to bleed over into this thread.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm still waiting for you to address any number of questions regarding your assertions, crimresearch, your comical arrogance notwithstanding. See, you "foam[ed] in the mouth" [sic] in the first place (and continue to spew forth); I've simply been asking you to clarify, or, if unable to, be a man and retract your statements.

Shall I list the items for you in one nice, neat little bundle?

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, crimresearch, it seems you've decided to abandon this thread (considering my observation of your contributions elsewhere in this forum of late). However, I'll make one last valiant attempt to get you to address these:I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...What other reasons, aside from her Vietnam "activities" make her "thoroughly despicable?" (If it is only one other reason, please take note that there is a difference between the word 'reasons' and 'reason.')...and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines...Please reveal how you are able to ascertain that anyone's apology is either cynical, arrogant, or both.

Additionally, how is it that you are able to ascertain the woman's motive in apologizing, regardless of whether the apology is sincere or not?...to keep her talentless career in the headlines...You are aware, perhaps, of Ms. Fonda's two Acadamy Awards for Best Performance by an Actress? They were for Klute and Coming Home. She has also been nominated five other times: in the Best Actress category for They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Julia, The China Syndrome, and The Morning After, and as Best Supporting Actress for On Golden Pond.

Ms. Fonda is also a Golden Globe and Emmy Award winner.And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...Please provide support for your assertion that Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."I guess that she won't be accused of making this up down the road a few years.What does the cryptic statement above refer to? If another allegation, please provide supporting evidence.I was thinking more of her bogus health and fitness industry...For purposes of discussion, please define "bogus" and how the term relates to her efforts, including 1982's Jane Fonda Workout, the highest-grossing home video in history.I myself find anorexia, bulimia, obesity, body image disorders and so forth to NOT be a source of amusement....Please provide supporting evidence for how the maladies you list relate to Jane Fonda and her efforts in the health and fitness industry. You may also wish to demonstrate how she is responsible for the independant actions of others.The only difference between her and faith healers IMHO, is that she used the celebrity of her family name to peddle her quack books and videos, and to sell the false hope to sick people that they too could look just like her, while she knew that her physique was the result of binging and purging.I note the IMHO portion of your post. Considering the earlier evidence I posted indicating that there was at least one eminently qualified advisor to the "Jane Fonda Workout" efforts (Daniel Kosich, Ph.D.), would you care to withdraw your claim that her products were "quack books and videos?" If not, will you please provide evidence to support your assertion that they are (that is, were)?Just out of curiosity, what exactly *would* Fonda have to do before you would stop being her apologist?Please demonstrate where or how I have revealed myself to be an apologist for Ms. Fonda.What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.

Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims.... Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.
:rolleyes:
I originally stated that I was not aware of your claim that her "physique was the result of binging and purging." You responded with the above post. You seem to be insinuating that I was not telling the truth. Please clarify or retract your statement.

Additionally, are you referring to me as a member of the so-called "religious right?" Or are you suggesting that they and I share similar "mentality?" Please clarify your line of reasoning.Keep on goosestepping Nick.In the absence of evidence, why would you choose to cast aspersions on another's reputation? That being said, would you care to apologize for your choice of terminology?You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation...Insofar as my only citing was of the Ph.D. advisor to the "Jane Fonda Workout," I am confused. Please clarify.

Also, please demonstrate how asking you to provide supporting information for allegations or statements does harm to my "reputation."If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.Please show where I have "fabricat[ed] out of context misquotes."If you have an honest question, ask it.I have been asking since I joined this discussion. Here, in this post, I am asking once again.If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.I have already briefly addressed these points. To expand: I cannot respond until you support your allegations and demonstrate your line of reasoning.

Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.I have already addressed these points. Again, the onus is on you to first support your assertions. Then a discussion may take place.

Also, would you indicate where I have engaged in "name calling [and] projection?" Moreover, please show where I claimed that my lack of knowledge on any matter constituted proof on the matter.Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.

So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.I have, elsewhere, clearly and simply--using your own words--responded to the above. Your subsequent response (that you were only using a figure of speech) I believe is debatable. However, I will not quibble at this time.The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.Again, please provide evidence regarding your claim. Please also demonstrate how it is germane to the discussion.
On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.You may wish to provide, for the first time in this discussion, whatever transcripts you deem relevant. Please also demonstrate their relevancy.

Following my claim that I do not know anything about quotes of Jane Fonda's you allude to, you insinuate that I "profess... ignorance." I would like you to apologize for the statement.Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind.As stated previously, I have requested that you provide evidence to support your assertions; there is no smoke screen. Until you respond with evidence to support your assertions we cannot continue.

Please provide evidence to support your assertions. Please clarify your line(s) of reasoning. Please retract your misstatements.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Well, crimresearch, it seems you've decided to abandon this thread The direction this thread has taken is familiar. That's because one day -- in a thread about John Kerry and the swiftboat veterans -- I too commiited the cardinal sin of asking for evidence. (I'd speculate there is a vietnam protester theme, except there are so many topics that set crim off that it's hard to tell.)

In case you're feeling special RK, you join a long list of jref members (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49172) who have been labeled as hatemongers, racists, and nazis for reasons no less surreal than what you have witnessed here. The only thing that distinguishes me is I'm the one who documented it.

Noxious individuals are a dime a dozen on the internet; crim is garden variety. What's not garden variety is an argumentation on a skeptical forum this blatantly disconnected from reality -- he doesn't even put up much of a facade. Odd.

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow.

Thanks for the link, varwouche.

Remarkable.

[crimresearch]

What other reasons, aside from her Vietnam "activities" make her "thoroughly despicable?" (If it is only one other reason, please take note that there is a difference between the word 'reasons' and 'reason.')

The multiple other reasons which I clearly stated right here in this very thread. The ones that no one else seems to be having any trouble seeing.

The ones you have to keep pretending don't exist, so that you can base your trollage on my saying 'reasons', and your phony pretense that I only have one reason.

More than one reason IS plural...get over it.
You lost this one before you started, because you chose to base it on a transparent lie.

Once more for the cheap seats....the fact that you *claim* to be unable to see the other reasons I posted, isn't my problem, it is yours. It makes you dishonest, not clever.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The multiple other reasons which I clearly stated right here in this very thread. The ones that no one else seems to be having any trouble seeing.Then humor me and list them. Please.The ones you have to keep pretending don't exist, so that you can base your trollage on my saying 'reasons', and your phony pretense that I only have one reason.

More than one reason IS plural...get over it.Judging by your responses here and in the 'handcuffed 5-year-old' thread, you seem to believe you've really got me dead to rights -- that is, in regard to this point. So here, once more, yet again, is your original quote:I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...Since you say that there are other reasons beside her "Vietnam activities," there must be at least two others for the statement to be valid. Yet you have only listed her efforts in the health and fitness industries.

That, by my count, is one other reason.

You did not say, "I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for a reason other than her Vietnam activities." You wrote the word "reasons." That suggests to me that, wait for it, there are other reasons -- that is, at least two more beside the Vietnam business. All I see is one: health and fitness.

Frankly this is such an inconsequential matter weighed against the other portions of your posts (questions of which you are thunderingly silent on, I note), but I don't mind. See, the reality where I come from maintains that words mean something. Perhaps it's different where you exist.You lost this one before you started, because you chose to base it on a transparent lie.I'll thank you to retract that.Once more for the cheap seats....the fact that you *claim* to be unable to see the other reasons I posted, isn't my problem, it is yours. It makes you dishonest, not clever. It should be a simple cut-n-paste job for you to quote the earlier words you claim to have posted in this thread. Please do.

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, and may I assume you are going to respond to the myriad other issues as detailed in my lengthy post several entries above?

[varwoche]

Crimresearch, are you aware that you have staked out an alternate reality? That anyone can simply scroll up and see in black and white that your posts are delusional? Let me remind you of your claim, emphasis added: crimresearch: I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance ... And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'
I assume you know this is a skeptical forum, so surely it does not come as a shock when you are asked: Regnad Kcin: Merely asking you to detail your stance.
To which you bizarrely replied: crimresearch: What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.
...
Keep on goosestepping Nick.
As weird as this is already, here's where you step into an alternate reality. You have posted exactly NOTHING in support of your emotional rant. No links - no quotes - nothing. Yet, unbelievably, you post this fiction: crimresearch: The fac [sic] that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words...the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion I repeat: You have not posted any transcripts. You have not posted any quotes.

And as a comical aside, what does this gibberish mean...
crimresearch: Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian. Are you hallucinating? I've seen disjointed non-seqs before, but this takes the cake.

I have some questions and they are painfully simple:

1) Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry.

2) Why is asking for evidence nazi-like? Will you retract your strange ad-hom?

Please, no more make believe and no new layers of invective. Just answer these simple questions with simple yes/no answers. Can you do that?

RK, crim claims to have me on ignore on alternate days (it's a hands over ears sort of thing -- he has a hard time coping with evidence in either direction). I invite you to quote me back if you wish.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by varwouche
Crimresearch, are you aware that you have staked out an alternate reality? That anyone can simply scroll up and see in black and white that your posts are delusional? Let me remind you of your claim, emphasis added:Originally posted by crimresearch
I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance ... And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'I assume you know this is a skeptical forum, so surely it does not come as a shock when you are asked:Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Merely asking you to detail your stance.To which you bizarrely replied:Originally posted by crimresearch
What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.
...
Keep on goosestepping Nick.As weird as this is already, here's where you step into an alternate reality. You have posted exactly NOTHING in support of your emotional rant. No links - no quotes - nothing. Yet, unbelievably, you post this fiction:Originally posted by crimresearch
The fac [sic] that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words...the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataionI repeat: You have not posted any transcripts. You have not posted any quotes.

And as a comical aside, what does this gibberish mean...Originally posted by crimresearch
Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian.Are you hallucinating? I've seen disjointed non-seqs before, but this takes the cake.

I have some questions and they are painfully simple:

1) Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry.

2) Why is asking for evidence nazi-like? Will you retract your strange ad-hom?

Please, no more make believe and no new layers of invective. Just answer these simple questions with simple yes/no answers. Can you do that?

RK, crim claims to have me on ignore on alternate days (it's a hands over ears sort of thing -- he has a hard time coping with evidence in either direction). I invite you to quote me back if you wish.Done. Not that it will result in a response other than invective, I'll wager.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin Not that it will result in a response other than invective, I'll wager. Wager? What the hell RK, do I have "sucker" written on my forehead or something?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
Do you intend to support your claim that Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women"? If no, just say so and I'll drop my inquiry. As crimresearch appears to have abandoned the thread, I assume the answer is no, (s)he does not intend to support his/her vitriolic outburst.

Crimresearch, you do realize that when one makes false, damaging statements about others that, besides being decidedly counter skeptical -- and just plain lame -- this it is considered defamation, and there are potential (civil) legal consequences* if the injured party were to learn of the defamation and decide to act on it?

* I'm not a lawyer -- I welcome clarification.

[Regnad Kcin]

An update of sorts:

In another JREF thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57665&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) (on Amnesty International), crimresearch made the following statement:I can understand the logic to the first (holding the US to a higher standard), but in past discussions, I've pointed out why it is a bad idea to label every bad thing with the labels that should be reserved for the very worst things. Rape is rape, torture is torture, genocide is genocide, and they shouldn't be cheapened by misapplication...I found the entry startling, seeing as how the poster seems to consider it perfectly reasonable to suggest in this thread, without providing any supportive evidence whatsoever, that Ms. Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."

Perhaps crimresearch will finally issue a retraction, thereby realigning him/herself with the worthy practice of reserving labels, hyperbolic or otherwise, for actions that deserve them.

[crimresearch]

Already provided..you can refuse to click on the link, and proclaim 'No Evidence!!' all you want.

I've backed up my point, which was that your woo-woo 'health industry' has killed thousands of women suffering from body image disorders, and that Jane Fonda's videos are part of profiteering form that industry, thereby making her complicit.

Your responses, to ignore the facts, quibble dishonestly over definitions, to refuse to provide any facts in support of *your* counter-assertions, while stalking the board whining hypocritically for others to provide what you won't, and to suddenly move the goalposts to whether 'plural' means *more* than two, are just more evidence of your substitution of woo for logic..

As is your new trick or refusing to accept the normal definition of 'hyperbole'.


You lose.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Already provided..you can refuse to click on the link, and proclaim 'No Evidence!!' all you want.No. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, there is no link in this thread to click on. Moreover, as I've read elsewhere in threads having to do with your contributions to these boards, you seem to have a very difficult time with the concept of links and evidence and supporting assertions. Pity.I've backed up my point, which was that your woo-woo 'health industry' has killed thousands of women suffering from body image disorders, and that Jane Fonda's videos are part of profiteering form that industry, thereby making her complicit.You have done no such thing. I can only guess that you suffer from some sort of malady if you believe you've "backed up [your] point."Your responses, to ignore the facts...Which you have yet to provide....quibble dishonestly over definitions...Nope....to refuse to provide any facts in support of *your* counter-assertions...Again, for the umpteenth time, I have made no "counter-assertions." I am asking you to back yours up....while stalking the board whining hypocritically for others to provide what you won't...I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you to provide a quote of mine to support your statement above?...and to suddenly move the goalposts to whether 'plural' means *more* than two, are just more evidence of your substitution of woo for logic..Plural, as I've explained to you, means more than one. Simple.

And whatever you mean by "moving the goalposts" is beyond me. All along, just trying to nail your squirmy statements down.As is your new trick or refusing to accept the normal definition of 'hyperbole'.I'll happily deal with the above sometime later.You lose. You wish.

[crimresearch]

"Which you have yet to provide"

How predictable...you've decided join the 'Can't see any steenking links' brigade, and just to make sure that no one accords you a shred of honesty, you ask for evidence in one thread, and then claim you can't see it in another.


"Plural, as I've explained to you, means more than one. Simple"

Very simple...just like the *two* examples I've given right here in this very thread, which you continue to claim aren't plural.
Are you using something other than your fingers on which to count? That would account for the poor vision.
:rolleyes:

"I'll happily deal with the above sometime later"

Translation:
'I'll run away for a while, and resume stalking and demanding evidence while ignoring it, and refusing to provide any of my own, later'.

Here is a lovely parting gift for you, since you seem to have so much trouble clicking on links, and reading scientific papers when they are provided...
http://www.clarkadspr.com/images/photo_shinola_large.jpg

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crimresearch
How predictable...you've decided join the 'Can't see any steenking links' brigade, and just to make sure that no one accords you a shred of honesty, you ask for evidence in one thread, and then claim you can't see it in another.How predictable. You've once again indicated (here and in at least one other thread) that there are links that other people (not just me) are ignoring. Links that you will not repost. Links that no one else will repost in your defense.

You are either operating with some odd computer system or are lying about the presence of links.Very simple...just like the *two* examples I've given right here in this very thread, which you continue to claim aren't plural.
Are you using something other than your fingers on which to count? That would account for the poor vision.
:rolleyes:Your puerile entries are as tiresome now as when you first engaged me in this debate following my simple request for you to support an assertion.

You know where I stand on the point regarding your inability to maintain consistency in regard to terminology. I won't repeat myself yet one more time as you are either being willfully obtuse or really are incapable of honest discourse.Translation:
'I'll run away for a while, and resume stalking and demanding evidence while ignoring it, and refusing to provide any of my own, later'.You might wish to add mind-reading to your resume of incompetence.

I have responded to aerocontrols in the appropriate thread. As for this or any other discussion...

You are beyond hopeless. You are a singularly pristine example of why our public (if not private) education system should be revamped. You are on my ignore list.

Enjoy.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by varwoche
...Noxious individuals are a dime a dozen on the internet; crim is garden variety. What's not garden variety is an argumentation on a skeptical forum this blatantly disconnected from reality -- he doesn't even put up much of a facade. Odd. Indeed.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
How predictable. You've once again indicated (here and in at least one other thread) that there are links that other people (not just me) are ignoring. Links that you will not repost. Links that no one else will repost in your defense.

You are either operating with some odd computer system or are lying about the presence of links.Your puerile entries are as tiresome now as when you first engaged me in this debate following my simple request for you to support an assertion.

You know where I stand on the point regarding your inability to maintain consistency in regard to terminology. I won't repeat myself yet one more time as you are either being willfully obtuse or really are incapable of honest discourse.You might wish to add mind-reading to your resume of incompetence.

I have responded to aerocontrols in the appropriate thread. As for this or any other discussion...

You are beyond hopeless. You are a singularly pristine example of why our public (if not private) education system should be revamped. You are on my ignore list.

Enjoy.

Ahhh yes...the famous 'ignore' list where you respond to what I've written with ad homs, but refuse to answer any questions about your own assertions.

The links are there in plain site, for anyone to see, in the other thread on AI where you are whining about there being no evidence...the plural statements are here in this thread for anyone to count..and your actions in refusing to admit the truth and running away, speak for themselves across the board.