Mark,
I'm impressed by your earnestness in wanting to get clarification. I'll just focus on one exchange. What motivated me to go on the offensive, so to speak, was the first comment you made, which was: > The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that... > at least, I hope you do. As the old say'in goes: First impressions count. Granted, it may not have been your intention to do so but that was a patronizing thing to say to anyone. So what if it's a one-sided article. So what if I posted that "one-side" article out to Vort Land. The world if full of one-sided POVs, and inevitably someone's one-sided POV (or article) is not going to align with one's personal stash of approved POVs. That doesn't make that so-called one-sided POV any less informative. As for the rest, to be honest I'm just no longer motivated enuf to go back and explain myself. Based on other comments you made I get the impression much of anything else I might say pertaining to the political arena would be interpreted as yet another leftist "rant" coming from me. You did call some of my prior comments "rants". But, enuf of interpreting my POVs. Let me put it another way. maybe you were more accurate than I was on some of the points you were trying to make, and perhaps I was more accurate on some of the other points. As for me, I would prefer to find common ground on what we can agree on rather than what we disagree on. Energy tends to be expended more efficiently when we work in a sand box of common ground. So, c u back in the Vort Sand box. Perhaps the next time we connect will end up on the same side. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
