<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>
>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>
>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>>> let's
>>> not forget that part.
>>
>>My objection to the LoL is that it is a circular,
>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>
> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No, from a logical and rational point of view.

It's bullshit David, always has been, always will be.