Replies

[...] that you had no idea, why, couldn't be more shocked to finally discover, at this late date, that posting in response to an earlier missive means you are commenting upon same -- knock yourself out, kiddo. There were nearly THREE. HUNDRED. prior postings in this thread, by that point... and you just happened to post a Karl Marx anti-free trade snivel in "non-response" to the one filled with PRO-free trade Ronald Reagan ones. [...]

Actually, I've been a member since 1997; I'm not sure why it indicates that I joined in 2000. But for the past almost-5 years, I've been mostly an observer, rather than a participant, in threads. It's a useful site for my job -- a metro daily newspaper editor -- to be able to vet wire stories that we run as I'm editing them, to ensure fairness, as much as possible.

I don't know why a misunderstanding has engendered such hostility on your part -- to be frank, I really don't care -- but it's obviously degenerated to the point where I think your next post will simply be "liar liar pants on fire" so long as I insist that it truly was coincidence that my post followed yours, and that I was under the impression that the code of posting held that if you wished to comment on a previous post, you should include the poster's name in your response -- otherwise, proximity has nothing to do with it. Would you have taken offense had my post been separated by 1 post from yours? 2? 10? Or should it appear on an entirely new page? Is there a standard amount of time I should wait before posting after you, to ensure you do not again come under the mistaken impression that I'm responding to your post?

You know what? Never mind. Whatever it is you're accusing me of, yes, I did it. So draw up the confession papers, I'll sign them just to shut you up. No need to respond, because I'm pau.