Re: Why Won't You Answer, Glenn V.?

On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 3:37:54 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2021 01:50:53 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> 
> >On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:11:23 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> >> > On 12 Mar 2021 13:06:48 -0000, John McAdams 
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: 
> >> > 
> >> > >> 
> >> > >>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of 
> >> > >>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't 
> >> > >>about votes, is it? 
> >> > >> 
> >> > >>> 
> >> > >>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump. 
> >> > >>
> No response.
> >> > >>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do 
> >> > >>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have 
> >> > >>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't 
> >> > >>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected 
> >> > >>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people 
> >> > >>left and right, like you do. 
> >> > >> 
> >> > > 
> >> > >Answer the question! 
> >> > > 
> >> > >Do you approve of the Tech Giants banning Trump? 
> >> > > 
> >> > Simple question. 
> >> > 
> >> > Are you afraid to answer? 
> >> >
> >> Glenn, I would like to see a direct answer on this point. If you agree 
> >> with it, just own it, and explain why you think political censorship isn't 
> >> deadly dangerous to a liberal Democracy. If you don't agree with it, the 
> >> simply repudiate it. I think in a *fair* contest of ideas, the right 
> >> ideas will win in the end. And I would say that if the Left had a the 
> >> equivalent of a Trump that was being banned. 
> >> 
> >
> >Brock, what does this question have to do with this discussion? John 
> >"assumed" opinions of mine, to later *demand* an answer those assumptions 
> >of his. Why is this relevant to this discussion and why would we let John 
> >divert the discussion this way? Is that about a fair contest of ideas? 
> >What gives John the right to *demand* answers from anyone here? Free 
> >speech? 
> >
> You were bashing Trump. 

> 
> So it was reasonable to ask, since you hate him so much, whether you 
> want him censored. 

Don't make things up out of thin air. I don't hate Trump - do you 
understand this?

> 
> You were the first one coming here and demanding answers. You didn't 
> get the answers you wanted.
> >If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer 
> >any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what 
> >was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread. 
> >
> If you are not afraid to answer the question, why don't you answer the 
> question?
> >Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the 
> >bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to 
> >vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the 
> >topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question. 
> >It goes both ways, Brock. 
> >
> I've answered you. 

No, you haven't. Go look at my questions again.

> I've pointed out that the voting reforms 
> Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN.

Again, quit making things up out of thin air. Republicans are nowhere near 
wanting our system, as I've explained in detail. Do you understand this?

> >FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.
> Then what are those opinions? 
> 
> .John 
> ------------------------------- 
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm