To: llevrok
Well, I'm not that impressed. Telling a guy to shut up and f off is better than agreeing or enabling, but it's neither very persuasive nor contentful nor compelling.
I'm glad he shut him down. Just not overimpressed with how or with what.
71 posted on
12/17/2006 8:58:19 AM PST by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: BibChr
Conner wasn't looking for rational debate and he framed his questions in a way that made rational debate impossible. He thought he could verbally bully Bonaduce and get away with it. He thought wrong. Bonaduce gave him a verbal punch in the nose and laid him out.
Mission accomplished.
88 posted on
12/17/2006 1:29:24 PM PST by
JCEccles
To: BibChr
I'm glad he shut him down. Just not overimpressed with how or with what. There was a time that I would have agreed, but you have to respond to a liberal in kind or they will not hear you.
Allow them to fear that you could hurt them if they keep talking. If you control the venue make it clear they will have to leave. If they want your presence in their sphere they will have to change the subject or stop speaking.
Shut them down and they may think twice about talking to the next person on the street.
100 posted on
12/28/2006 10:58:32 PM PST by
higgmeister
(In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson