[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
O.k., so maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought, Michael.
As I saw it, I called Ralph Nader a left-wing extremist nut. (Words I
still stand by, by the way.)
You then called me out for "name-calling."
At that point, you went on in using a few more words to call me basically a
right-wing extremist nut.
To wit, you wrote:
>> > I'm sure you would
>> >probably have no problem letting businesses poison the air, water, land,
>> etc.
>> >until they destroy the ecosystem that supports us, and kill us and
>> hundreds
>> >if not thousands of other species in the process. I'm sure that that
>> doesn't
>> >bother you at all, even though the thought of two people of the same
sex
>> >having relations does bother you.
Do you understand what you wrote Michael? Right up there in living color
Michael you said that it *doesn't bother me at all* to see you and I both
die in an environmental catastrophe, as well as the extinction of
thousands of other species.
Then, after calling me a nut, you blithely admitted that you really don't
have the first clue as to what I really think! Specifically, you wrote
that:
>> >Now, I admit that I don't really know your stance on those issues,
And you don't see this as a recant? That's why I put it there. Had I meant
it, I would never have written that part of the sentence. I used that simply
as an illustration of current policy. If you wanted me to be calm and
rational in the discussion, you should have tried doing so yourself. I have
a very bad habit of modeling my behavior after the person that I am talking
to.
>I was discussing policy in that paragraph. The policy of the RepublicanOr did I refer to a very specific organization, namely The
and
>Democratic parties (which people would have seen had you not snipped the
last
>line midsentence).
Sorry Michael, but I don't see what you are driving at. Your very first
sentence began with "I'm sure you would." You made it very clear in your
opening statements you were including me within your own caricature of the
two major parties. If the intent of your post was an indictment of
nameless officials in the major parties, you did an excellent job of
disguising it as a personal reply to me for the first half of your message.
> It wasn't meant as a personal
>attack, but I dare say your comment about *all* greens being "lunatics"
was.
It seems to me that someone who is so concerned about proper quoting should
be a little more careful with what he quotes. Did I say "*all* greens"
Michael?
Greens/Green Party USA. Allow me to refresh your memory:
> Even worse, many of his supporters come
> from The Greens/Green Party USA, and those people are flat out lunatics,
> with almost no understanding of economics, or good governance.
Please note, I never put the word all in quotes, but from what you wrote, it
is unmistakably implied that *all* Greens are lunatics. I don't see any
difference here in what you said. You unmistakably say that Greens (not
"some Greens", not "most Greens", not "many Greens", so "all Greens" is
implied) are lunatics. Maybe your sentence was badly worded, just as my
illustration of Republican/Democratic policy could have been better worded,
but you have said it and said you stand behind that and other statements
insulting individuals and groups, rather than trying to clarify your meaning.
I on the other hand have repeatedly clarified my meaning.
Michael, my point was the following...... You seemed rather pissed off
that I called Ralph Nader an "extremist nut", because of the way I view his
policies. Yet, you seemed unable to connet your own views of my opinions,
and your views of the major parties, to the same course of logic. In
other words, before your condemn my disdainment for the political views of
Ralph Nader and The Greens/Green Party USA, you should take some time to
reflect on how you have expressed your opinions on the views of
conservatives, and adherents of the two major parties.
Let me spell out the difference then. I never said that
Republicans/Democrats are lunatics. I never said that they are anything. I
mearly stated a (perhaps a little exagerated, but still true) reflection of
their policy. If you think that that makes them lunatics, that's your
judgement, not mine. And if you do think that makes them lunatics, then why
are you voting for them?
If Nader is really a "nut" (i.e., crazy) then he shouldn't be eligable to run
for the office of president. By law, a person is required to be eligible to
vote to run for the office of president, and if someone is declared
clinically insane, they are not eligable to vote. So until Nader is declared
clinically insane, I don't want to hear your unwaranted, unqualified
character attacks on him or his supporters (which, again, if they are
clinically insane, they would be ineligable to vote).
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
