Obviously, calcowgirl -- I had no clue about the book, and you and the others you ping do. Continuing to nit at me, is not very conducive to discourse. I was genuinely attempting to understand what you and your "pinger's" were communicating. Treating me as some half-witted idiot (RHINO, SLAVE, naiive) -- was probably exactly how my posts appeared to you who are on the same page with CO's writing. I bet it was a big yuk-yuk for each of you. Knowing so much, and attempting to "educate" an naiive (I believe that word came up too) must have been truly an onerous, albeit generous task.
Obviously, calcowgirl -- I had no clue about the book, and you and the others you ping do.
I posted nothing that had anything to do with C.O.'s book, nor the content therein. The things I have commented on were things you included in your original post when you entered at post #59, pinging me and several others (conservative and moderate actions, party politics, socialism, new parties, etc).
Continuing to nit at me, is not very conducive to discourse. I was genuinely attempting to understand what you and your "pinger's" were communicating. Treating me as some half-witted idiot (RHINO, SLAVE, naiive) -- was probably exactly how my posts appeared to you who are on the same page with CO's writing. I bet it was a big yuk-yuk for each of you. Knowing so much, and attempting to "educate" an naiive (I believe that word came up too) must have been truly an onerous, albeit generous task.
Please direct me to what I said that you interpreted in this way. I can't find anything I posted that even resembles this and I certainly had no intention of implying any such thing. The only thing I am seeing that might have been misinterpreted, was my post that said "Exhibit 1--for the umpteenth time". That was referring back to the item mentioned in my first response to you that I was so sick of seeing other people justifying this administration's actions by saying it is "better than Bustamante", something to which you said you agreed. It was not directed to anything that you had posted, but only as an example of continuing behavior by others. My apologies if you misinterpreted that. In retrospect, I could have stated it better.
In post #127, I did disagree with you that C.O.'s viewpoint about a conservative politician's chance at "winning" was unique since he comes from Santa Cruz county. Is that what you found offensive? Or perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying?
Not one FReepmail I received from calcowgirl or anybody else was derisive in that vein. We did wonder why you seemed to ignore the hard data I had posted without comment. We have enough trouble dealing with what I call the Arndroids (a relatively witless bunch of vicious cheerleaders) without now having to deal with what appeared to be a better educated and possibly a professional Party researcher/opinion-molder. I know for a fact that there are such paid partisans on FR. None of those I've identified are as formidably pleasant as you (although you usually write more words than post sourced facts however wide-ranging and interesting your thoughts might be).
When a thread turns into a reasonably rational and polite discussion, as this one did (sadly rare on FR these days), one of the most tiring things I deal with is people who respond to but a fraction of the elements of a total case, or write as if we aren't all reading all the posts on the thread with the links supplied (which in my case is a lot of pretty powerful and well-supported stuff). It isn't fair to the poster or the debate not to address every point, because they took the time and thought to produce a coherent and supported thought. When the respondents do engage in what appear to be strategic omissions, you have to go back and show what they didn't address and the conversation gets both disjointed and testy.
As you know, posting here is not as if you were standing in a public square in a small group. One can lay out two or three posts before an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) comes back to respond and may not do so in the order of those points. The first poster can't know if the respondent has read them all or not, so when they respond to the first of what may be several posts to come, the conversation is already messy. Internet fora are just not conducive to normal conversation. It's a good thing in that one doesn't talk off the top of the head so readily, but it does tend to induce people to talk past each other.
The reaction I had from others to your posts was more concern than mirth. You are a long term FReeper, write persuasively, and were representing what I saw as a carefully couched variant on the old Republican "incrementalism" carrot, which, in my experience as well as those to whom you refer, invariably works out to be incrementalism towards the left. So the consensus was, 'Let's keep the conversation going and see where it goes,' although there was research into your posting history.
We're a tough bunch (the conservatives you've met on this thread). We write well and post sourced facts. To varying degree we've conversed for years. We've been burned badly by the "moderates," first Simon and now Arnold, and are now holding their feet to the fire, seeing as Arnold has proven worse than even my predictions. Believe me, if we decide finally that you are a high-powered-New-Majority-paid-shill-suddenly-showing-up-with-a-fat-contract-to-do-opposition-research-on-the-opinions-and-ideas-of-California-Reepers, we'd be pow-wowing hard to figure out what to do with you. :--)
When I meet what seems to be a worthy opponent on a point of political debate, I usually hope for the best and hold concern for the worst. Upon encountering you (me being an incautious entrepreneurial sort), I offered a ton of material by both link and email, including some half baked ideas. I was effectively giving you ammunition against me should the worst of my concerns prove true (a Christian thing to do). That was an act of trust on my part, trust that your intelligence would, upon reflection, turn your thinking sufficiently to at least acknowledge the coherency of the points made therein. The heartburn comes with the observation that you were almost too polite and obstinate when it came to your lack of response to the specific points and facts, of which I had both linked and sent a bucketload. Not knowing how much of it you had read and noting that your posts didn't look as if it was much of it, I prodded, if not very gently. (Us authors gets touchy when we thinks our stuff didn't work.) Male ego and all that.
Huh???
You're coming across as being much too thin-skined to have been here as long as you have. First allow me to point out that I would not classify myself as being completely "on the same page with CO's writing." He and I have butted heads now and then, but we treat each other with respect, and as far as I can see you were treated that way too.
When someone with as much on his plate as CO takes the time to make a detailed post to bring you up to speed, you should not feel belittled, or insulted; you should be at least somewhat grateful. There is no attempt here to diminish you that I can perceive. Can you point us to that to which you object?