statements (the same kind of statements that you have challenged others on
several times). I said "it doesn't sound like." (which was my opinion) and
"I've no idea whatsoever how you can come to that conclusion from the
statement" which was clearly a statement of opinion.
I don't believe I attacked you and it was not my intention. I was simply
stating my opinions and I apologize if you felt insulted by them. In answer
to your question I don't feel the need to call you names. Personally I've
never found it very useful or constructive in the least.
But, why do you - (you, Sam Morris, not "your kind") need to? Why do you
always seem to reply to criticism with blanket, dismissive labels,
projected-criticism and passive-aggression? It seems to me that you have
trouble discussing political issues unless you can label those in the
conversation.
Anybody that disagrees with you, it seems, is dismissible because they are
"liberal". (Which, you must admit, you use in a very negative way.) Those
that claim not to be "liberal" are self deluding; some are "liberal
extremists". Those that read and consider your material but still disagree
are painted as not understanding the material or blinding themselves due to
their liberal beliefs.
In short, it seems to me, that once you assign your label (usually
"liberal") you stop considering that person's opinion and dismiss them. I
believe that one of the reasons you often receive negative responses is that
you not only make these assumptions but you insist on their application.
You make snide comments, glib sarcastic statements and parse the minutia of
others statements but get angry at others that do the same. You often, as
you have in this post, ascribe your negative habits to others.
My recap of this would be:
+) A post was made about the Post article. You made a sarcastic statement
implying a conclusion that seemed, to me at least, so off-base that I
challenged your basis for it.
+) You assured me that you had, in fact, made the statement with full
knowledge of the facts. Later you posted a conclusion you drew based on a
comment by Woodward. Again I challenged that such a conclusion could be
drawn from material. I, being admittedly pedantic and probably more than a
little petty, also challenged your use of the slang "Monday Morning
Quarterback". But in that case I felt you were using the phrase to say that
Woodward was commenting more on his peers than on his self. I felt his
comments were self-directed.
+) A short discussion of the phrase "Monday Morning Quarterback" ensued.
You intimated that I lack reading comprehension. You presented your
assumption that I didn't read the article as fact.
+) I replied, still not convinced that your assumptions were clearly
inferable from the material. I clearly state that the root of the
disagreement could be based on issues with one or both of use and may stem
from existing biases. I note that you have a tendency to dismiss voices of
disagreement.
+) You wrongfully (and aggressively) assume that I'm "beating around the
bush" (another phrase I find out of context here since I was hardly hemming
my words) and in fact want to "call you names". You claim that I "attacked"
you. You accuse me of attempting to make you look foolish (I assure you
that was never my intent - I may try understand your view or change your
mind, but I will never try to make you look foolish).
You claim that I called you "incoherent" (I said no such thing; indeed I
find you quite coherent), "annoying" (I said no such thing) and "tiresome"
(that I did say, although you apply the label universally when I
specifically made the claim about your style of argument not you in
general).
You claim that I made "ridiculous accusations" (I don't believe I did). You
then imply that I am unable to have an "adult" conversation.
Honestly I've no hostility towards you personally (although I am proudly
hostile to some of your stated beliefs; but that's far from the same thing).
However I feel like you've turned increasingly hostile during the
conversation and have undeservedly projected much of that hostility on to
me. If I've misread that then I apologize.
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
