AR essay on the nature of racism

[Plane]

Absolutely.  If Xo has no intention of backing up any of his repetative wreckless claims, I have no problem with that.  I just like to highlight it for all to see, posters and mere visitors alike

Give the visitor some credit, they do see what they do see.

[sirs]

Who says I don't.  I'm just providing a reasonable reality check for the infrequent visitor

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am totally confident that anyone reading sirs' stupid remarks can see he is a drooling cryptofascist idiot.

[sirs]

And I'm totally confident that anyone reading Xo's lack of being able support even 1 of his outragious claims can see just how uncredible he is.  Bug cudos on the namecalling.  In that area, he does excel

[Plane]

Pointing things out is redundant if they are odvious.

Redundantly pointing things out is exactly redundant even if the origional is not obvious.

Recursively returning to something that is already redundant is redundant.

Repeated iterations of redundancy is redundant.

Multiple repeats of repeated recursions of redundancy is redundant.

Repeated iterations of multiple repeats of repeated recursions of redundancy is redundant.

Once again,just in case , perhaps, if I haven't recovered the subject of redundancy quite enough;

Pointing things out is redundant if they are odvious.

Redundantly pointing things out is exactly redundant even if the origional is not obvious.

Recursively returning to something that is already redundant is redundant.

Repeated iterations of redundancy is redundant.

Multiple repeats of repeated recursions of redundancy is redundant.

Repeated iterations of multiple repeats of repeated recursions of redundancy is redundant.

[Plane]

I note that the Ann Rand essay at the head of this thread is somewhat repeditive , striking every point of logic involved from every angle .

This is not the thing I like about it.

[sirs]

Pointing things out is redundant if they are odvious.

Not for infrequent visitors.  But cudos on the redundant explanation   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not writing for sirs, or unknown infrequent visitors, since I cannot write to people whom I know nothing about.

If you do not wish to comment on Rand, I am not going to respond.\

And for God's sake, the word is OBVIOUS, with a B, not oDvious, with a D.

Or perhaps I should say "For Gob's sake"

[sirs]

I am not writing for sirs, or unknown infrequent visitors, since I cannot write to people whom I know nothing about.

Yet again, debunking an argument, NEVER made.  Yet unable to back up ANY his own claims, that HE made

[Xavier_Onassis]

So effing what?

I stand by what I said. It is true. You assume that I am debating this point, and I am not.

[sirs]

I am not writing for sirs, or unknown infrequent visitors, since I cannot write to people whom I know nothing about.

Yet again, debunking an argument, NEVER made.  Yet unable to back up ANY his own claims, that HE made

So effing what?

Credibility herr Professor.  Credibility.  Which apparently you care very little about, in this a debate forum.  That's effing what