Heidegger

On 12/06/2006, at 8:52 PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
> Present moral accusations undercover of neutral philosophical
> discussion by exclusively giving ideologically one-sided examples.
You are “disappearing up your own arse, mate” as we Aussies say. I
take it then that yes, you are incapable of dealing honestly and
openly with historical problems that threaten your sanitized view of
history […]

On 10/06/2006, at 1:43 AM, That Pete wrote:
> Is it
> just this physicist’s credentials (he sez so) that make you believe
> the wtc was demolished, or is there a specific bit of evidence that
> makes you believe the wtc towers were demolished?
Neither. The physicist’s credentials lend me to take his questions
seriously, and there are […]

On 09/06/2006, at 9:44 PM, That Pete wrote:
> — Dr Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
>> Are you asking for a proof from Steven E Jones essay that shows ‘Bush
>> did it’?
>
> You’re changing the rules. From merely having to show that
> Malcolm believes in a flat earth style hypothesis, you’re
> moving the goal posts to […]

On 08/06/2006, at 7:04 AM, That Pete wrote:
> So it is all those taken together that convinces you that Bush blew
> up three WTC buildings? So if one is proven false, your whole
> conspiracy implodes? Or is there one item that by itself proves that
> Bush did it definitively?
Are you asking for a proof […]

On 08/06/2006, at 5:03 AM, That Pete wrote:
> — Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
>> and also the essays of BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones:
>>
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/ener…
>
> I read this. He’s a physicist who has done research in cold fusion
> and also claims Jesus visited America. The structural engineers
> at his own university dispute his analysis.
Good start […]

On 08/06/2006, at 3:31 AM, That Pete wrote:
> I’m game. Multitudes watched the planes hits the towers and the towers
> collapse. There’s the footage that millions watched live on TV. The
> physics makes sense. What leads you to believe the towers were brought
> down by a controlled demolition?
The physics don’t even vaguely make sense, […]

On 06/06/2006, at 2:02 AM, That Pete wrote:
> Hey, thanks for all the sarcastic chuckles.
>
> My intial point, before the departure into silliness, was
> that if you have a substantive point to make in the
> Heidegger department, not drowning it in anti-americanism
> would help me to discern it.
I’ll add this as:
12. Befriend and distract
You […]

On 04/06/2006, at 11:52 AM, That Pete wrote:
>> In regards to this question then what about American anti-American
>> speech?
>
> I think it is fine for Americans to burn their own flag, as a symbol
> of some aspect of America they don’t like. I don’t think that’s
> anti-americanism.
>
> On the other hand I’ve never seen […]

Hi Anthony, thatPete and BobG and anyone else who might be interested,
just following along with the question of what anti-Americanism
actually means to you Americans I must say the last crop of responses
was not particularly enlightening. I think perhaps if you could give
me some specific quotes of anti-American speech I might be able to
form some […]