On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:09:00 +0900, "Rona Yuthasastrakosol"
> wrote:

>
>"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
>> Michel Boucher, , outspoken and often mistaken critic
>of
>> American government is deeply (to say the least ) interested in Marxism.
>Check
>> his posts under "michel boucher " in the Search box for :
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&q=rec.food.co
>> oking&btnG=Search.
>>
><snip>
>
>WTF? Why bring up someone's posts from another newsgroup unless you have
>nothing substantial to say? You must have very limited skills (and perhaps
>intelligence) if you have to resort to searching for "damning" information
>elsewhere. And what are you going to dig up on others who have blasted
>Reagan and the American government (Michel is not the only one who has done
>so)? Childhood stories? Did someone pee his pants when he was 10?
>
>Grow up already.
>
>rona

Whereas I wish she hadn't have done that (start a new topic here with
his name in the subject line and bring a discussion from another
newsgroup here), I think one has to view it in the context of Michel's
relentless anti-American badgering on rfc over the years. It's sort
of like a neighbor I had years ago, who was very loud and not so
bright. She liked her steak well-done. Every time someone mentioned
"steak" she went into her canned speech about how she wanted HER steak
well-done, she didn't want the cow to moo when she cut the steak, blah
blah blah... On cue, whenever steak was served ("how do you want your
steak?") we knew she'd start the same idiot and boring dissertation;
people's eyes would glaze over as she blathered on (of course, she did
the same for other topics). Being loud, stupid, and incessant didn't
make her right; it just set some people daydreaming about various
(violent) ways to stop her.

Anyway, that's what Michel is like and it's not surprizing that
someone snapped. Plus, he is a ceaseless source of misinformation
that he pulls out of his hat to bolster his points. When caught, he
offers a lame excuse along the lines of he was right in spirit if not
facts. Debating with him is useless because he draws from a grab bag
of fact and fantasy which he uses to wear down his opponent. It costs
him nothing to make up something and throw it out as fact; but the
others then have to know or do research to refute the point. Soon
enough this gets irritating or boring to the second party and they
wander off. The bottom line is that his purpose is not to have an
intellectual debate on a topic, but to annoy people, especially
Americans. It's a great source of satisfaction to him, like an
addiction.

I didn't write the above to chastise Michel, but I think you were too
harsh on one of his victims who snapped.

I wish we didn't discuss politics and religion on rfc, but that's
never going to change.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!