"Lying seems to be your MO."
No. Its yours.
"When you say that the same people (with whom you have disagreed on other threads) are saying the same things they said on other threads and attacking them,on this one,that is bringing over a "fight" from another thread."
No it is not. I'm pointing out that they are copying their talking points from related but seperate threads to pound the same point home, rather than discuss the article of the week. Thats a concerted attempt to "push" the discussion - always in a negative direction. Its disingenuous.
"Have you,or have you not been on at least one other thread(specifically the one that Peggy wrote slamming the Inaugural speech),disagreeing with some people on this thread?"
Yes
"Did you,or did you not attack,out of hand,people on this thread,more than once..."
No. I never attacked anyone out of hand. At first, my attacks were directed at those who slured Noonan as a "slut, whore, lesbian bitch" - ie. character attacks instead of addressing the article itself.
"...saying that they are just cut and pasting the same things they said on other threads?"
No. This is the first time I used the cut & paste phrase, because its the first time I noticed *some* of her detractors were merely regurgitating sound bytes they enjoyed from the other Noonan-bashing threads.
"And of course,the above is yet another LIE,because I for one,have NOT repeated a single thing I have ever said about Peggy,on any thread,in the past 7 years,except that she is a hack;which she is."
Which is it? You "have not" or you "have" (hack). BTW, how is hack an objective criticism? Don't we reserve that kind of language for enemies like Dowd and Cole?
"And so,it is you and you alone,who is bearing false witness here."
See above.
"Though why you imagine you see a mote in many other peoples' eyes,where there is none,but fail to see the beam in thine own,escapes me utterly."
I see the mote. I'm using it. Why is that you can poke Noonan with a stick of ad hominem, but when I take the stick from you and poke back you cry foul?
Painting with the broadest brush available,you come onto Peggy threads and without EVER commenting on the article she's written,you,without naming any names (nics),heap calumny on anyone who dares to find factual fault with what Peggy has written.Example after example of her excruciatingly drippy prose,inaccuracies,and bias are posted to this thread,but you consider these critiques to be "personal attacks" on her and by inference,on you.
By slamming every unnamed posters,the implication is that everyone who finds fault with the article,are part and parcel of this as yet unnamed group of malefactors,which you so haughtily claim to be above. When posters take umbrage with your one personal attack covers all,you turn on them individually.
For the record,please CCP,to this thread,from EVERY previous thread that has EVER been posted to FR,in it's entire history,the replies wherein I and every single other poster to this thread,who has factually pointed out the flaws of THIS article,has called Peggy a "slut,whore,lesbian bitch". I,for one,have NEVER posted any/all of those things about Peggy,but because of the way you have repeatedly stated this BIG LIE,it would appear to lurkers that I have.So the ball is in YOUR court now.Prove it,or apologize in full to me and others!
You keep digging that hole....dig,dig,dig,DIG;you pathetic LIAR! Put up or shut up;prove what you claim,or forever be shown to be the LIAR we know that you are!
And the word "hack",BTW, has a specific meaning when used to describe a writer.Unfortunately,you haven't the glimmer of an idea as to its meaning.So,I'm going to educate you.:-)
hack.....a person,as an artist or writer,who exploits,for money,his creative ability or training,in the production of DULL,UNIMAGINATIVE,and TRITE WORK;one who produces BANAL and MEDIOCRE work in the hope of gaining commercial success. (Please pay attention to the following bit especially!) a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence,integrity,belief,etc. in return for money or OTHER REWARD in performance of a task normally thought of as involving A STRONG PERSONAL COMMITMENT.
By flip flopping,in a scant few hours,her position on the Inaugural speech (gee,the lefties just LOVE GOPers pundits who castigate the president,don't they?) she got lots of press. And then,there is Peggy's purple prose,which most assuredly falls into the category of the BANAL;not to mention INANE and TRITE!
Case closed!