Replies

Your statements toward me : > “as far as ‘I’m’ concerned” (and) “go away” < seem to run contrary to the intent and spirit of this forum.

Maybe you don't understand the subtle dynamics of Free Republic.

You have been here less than a week now, you post half-literate gibberish (there's even a spell-checker now, so you no longer have that excuse), you lob insults freely, and you insist on stirring up the pot on an issue that cuts across multiple layers of conservative thought in different ways.

And now you presume to lecture me on the purpose of this forum.

Lots of people have done that I've just described over the past five years, just to start food fights. I've been around long enough to recognize the Delphi Technique. Your posts are practically a how-to primer for that particularly odious form of "discourse."

Until you have some seniority around here, and you've actually demonstrated that you are a serious, thoughtful person, I'm going to regard you as just another troll. If you aren't a troll, then you might wish to reflect upon the wisdom of how you have only one opportunity to make a good first impression, and how you've blown it.

I am sorry that I am relying on personal experience in making this judgement, but that's the only kind of experience I have.

Dear Mr. Poohbah: You still haven’t answered the question I asked after your accusation.

I will try one more time to get a direct response from you.

Please Refer me to the post where: > “I insist that only (MY) way is the true way.” <

You can’t: because there is no such post.

You write: >And now you presume to lecture me on the purpose of this forum.<

No, I simply posted the mission statement from the front page!
Why would you abject to that?

You write: > “you lob insults freely”<

I wrote you in a very cordial way on the forth line of my post as follows:
“I would certainly welcome your comments on the substance of what I wrote.”

However, I still await even one comment on “the substance“ of anything I’ve written

Your whole “argument” seems to be based on the fact that I’m a newbe!

Please explain what that has to do with the validity (or fallacy) of my argument. Or any argument for that matter?

It’s irrelevant!

You write:> I've been around long enough to recognize the Delphi Technique.”<

And I’ve been around long enough to recognize the: “Evade The Issue Technique.”

You seem to be a Master at this Technique.

No, my friend , I don’t employ the “Delphi Technique” Rather I employ the system of a certain Philosopher, that the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed to be the wisest man in Greece. It’s a system that purports to get at the truth.

This Philosopher also “stirred a few pots.”

He was loved by many, but certain little people didn’t like him very much!

The agitated “little people” that opposed him are long forgotten.

But the name -- the influence -- of this great man lives on even to the present time!

You write: >“you ‘insist’ on ‘stirring up the pot’ on an issue that cuts across multiple layers of conservative thought in different ways.” <

Some times pots need to be stirred.

The problem with “pot steering“ is that you never know what kind of muck is going to come to the surface.

However it’s the only way to get rid of the rot. The longer it stays in the pot, the worse it smells!

You write: >Lots of people have done that I've just described over the past five years, just to start food fights.<

The above should read: > Lots of people have done “WHAT” I've just described.< Not: > Lots of people have done THAT I've just described (to ere is human; to forgive is divine. we all make mistakes)

I came here to have intelligent discourse; Not “food fights.”
.
You write: > I am sorry that I am relying on personal experience in making this judgment... <

Well, I’m sorry that you have had some sort of bad experience in the past. I assure you that if you approached me a little more gingerly, you would find me a very agreeable person.