"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.
think.i12.comfallacies.htmlOpen ↗
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
austarmetro.com.auconspiracy.htmOpen ↗
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
