[beezdotcom]

LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU.

You don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm not your daddy.

But your Observation served to dismiss those (like myself) who might have valid reasons for leaning in favor of this judge, by lumping them in with those who are soft on illegal imiigration (unlike myself).

Sure, you can say that "you weren't talking about me", and that I'm jumping to conclusions. Perhaps. However, by being NON-specific in your Observation, it could easily lead people to think that you were making such a generalization - and you darn well know it.

[WRhine]

"LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU."

You don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm not your daddy.

huh? Do you recognize the below statement in quotes?

"To help it stand, you'll have to cite examples of the "many of the posters" that take these conflicting positions. If you're right, it should be easy to do."

Sure, you can say that "you weren't talking about me", and that I'm jumping to conclusions. Perhaps. However, by being NON-specific in your Observation, it could easily lead people to think that you were making such a generalization -and you darn well know it.

I thought it in good taste not to name names and start a Flame War. OK, perhaps instead of saying "most" I should have said "some".