Re: What Sort Of Men Are Deviant?

On Apr 3, 7:14=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:12:39 -0700 (PDT), FLTom <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 1, 4:10=EF=BF=BDam, "Neosapienis" <[email protected]=
>
> >wrote:
> >> This is my last excerpt from the book "Understanding Sex" ------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------=EF=BF=BD---=
---------------------------------------------------
>
> >The book Understanding Sex has been thoroughly discredited on this
> >newsgroup within the past ten days.
>
> I'm not sure you can make that statement. It's been called into
> question, it has some flaws, but thoroughly discredited????

Yes, it has some flaws.  It's too wishy-washy in what it says.  Most
of the points it makes are valid, but aren't stated stongly and
clearly enough.

> > Only a weirdo with a hidden agenda
> >would continue to cite it.
>
> I don't know that characterizing those with whom you disagree as
> "weirdos" really does much to support yur argument. In fact, when you
> resort to name calling, it suggests that you have no argument.

Yep!

> >Every post I've seen from Neosapienis affirms that he fits the "weird"
> >criteria quite well. He's the kind of guy who's sort of intelligent
> >but not all there. Nudism seems to attract the type. He blithely
> >persists in foisting his views on the nudist community as though he's
> >leading it to a new place of enlightenment, when in reality he
> >confirms in the mind of the average non-nudist that nudists are a
> >bunch of flakes.
>
> Again, all you do here is attack the person, not the ideas. If you
> don't have a cogent argument, why waste the space?

He doesn't have a cogent argument or, so far as I can tell, any
argument at all.

>
> -T.


Good post, Mr Stinson, Sir.

:-)

Jenny