"Carole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:Michele
I think you need to have a look at Sinbad's [censored] detector, because you
often default to using emotive terms to dismiss a point of view you disagree
with.
Holy [censored] -- half wit Carole, who attributes everything she doesn't
understand (& that's a LOT) to "conspiracies", "cartels", &
"suppression" telling someone else about emotive language -- LOL!
Quoted message said:
Michele has used such language as -
* "trying to stop free access to nutritional supplements" nonsense.
Sure have. The idea of some conspiracy trying to stop free access to
nutritional supplements IS nonsense. Especially when those Carole
thinks are doing so are making money through the PROMOTION of
nutritional supplements & whatever other products consumers will part
with a buck for.
Quoted message said:* - "everything's a conspiracy" [censored],
Carole attributes every conventional idea presented as a conspiracy.
Pure & utter [censored], unless the word "idiocy" suits her better.
Carole's paranoia WRT anybody making money (unless it's someone
peddling alt. remedies, in which case money making is apparently
acceptable in her book) is beyond common sense. There simply aren't
that many conspiratorial plots afoot in the world! Her simpleton
ideas -- like some sinister plot to keep the people of the world sick
so they'll be "under control" (working like a charm in the Middle
East, eh?) -- "suppression" of nutritional information which can
easily be found in every library, on countless websites, & on
infommercials appearing on network, cable & satellite TV (quite a
"suppression" goin' on there...) -- & moaning on her soapbox that
people who've done well for themselves monetarily have obviously done
so at the expense of those who haven't (as if distribution of
tenacity, sacrifice, intelligence, & plain old luck was always "fair"😉
are the epitome of emotive language & ideas. To refer to them as
"twaddle", "tripe", "drivel", & "[censored]" is certainly more appropriate
than Carole's repeated use of her litany of words she doesn't actually
comprehend -- words like "brainwashed", "sheep", "cartel" -- or her
references to economics, when counting pocket change is her whole body
of knowledge on the subject. My choice of words is entirely
appropriate when Carole makes sweeping statements that she admits she
"hasn't figured out yet".
Quoted message said:
Michele thinks words like "tripe" are objective terms.
Michele:
It's an objective term, along with "garbage", "nonsense", & "drivel".
Your ranting about "conspiracies", "cartels", & "suppression" (OH MY!)
would be emotive.
Carole is now truly the dumbest person I've encountered in quite some
time. Perhaps this moron has forgotten it is she who rants about
conspiracies, cartels, & suppression & I've always responded that
she's ranting about things that aren't found under every rock, in
every cupboard.
Quoted message said:Especially when you don't understand what you're
trying to talk about, as you continue to show.
This is the person who "hasn't figured it out yet". Holy moly, she's
lost what little is left of her mind.....
Quoted message said:
---------------------------------
I would like you to have a look at this webpage and study its contents. Here
is the emotive language excerpt.
http://www.think.i12.com/fallacies.html
Prejudicial Language
Definition:
Loaded or EMOTIVE TERMS are used to attach value or moral goodness to
believing the proposition.
Examples:
Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free
vote on capital punishment.
A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here,
the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill.
(Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on
Parliament Hill.)
Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Canadians" or "A
reasonable person"😉. Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make
a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
If Carole truly doesn't see her use of paranoia & hyperbole WRT
subjects which she knows little or nothing about (as she herself
admits), she is a candidate for the aluminum foil helmet brigade.
Carole: Try reading up on more than the latest "National World"
headlines. Or just keep spewing your usual [censored]. And it IS
[censored] -- nothing emotive about that......<G>
