I did address you and your post.
You used the despicable term "politcally infirm" to describe the Able Danger affair. It is a callous term, from the prior epoch of the polity when MSM owned all political commentary -- they had the sole franchise, the monopoly, they spoke "out of the Cathedral", popes of all political and cultural understandings.
Why did you do so? I give an answer -- why else? Why else but that you supported Clinton, for by dismissing Able Danger you aid the cover up of the total recklessness of the Clintons, their cabal, and their willing also-corrupted allies in media and institutions.
I have found you. This is my hello.
It is a long and well-established tradition on Free Republic to use italics to clearly seperate your reply from the post to which you are replying.
I did address you and your post.
You used the despicable term "politcally infirm" to describe the Able Danger affair. It is a callous term, from the prior epoch of the polity when MSM owned all political commentary -- they had the sole franchise, the monopoly, they spoke "out of the Cathedral", popes of all political and cultural understandings.
Why did you do so? I give an answer -- why else? Why else but that you supported Clinton, for by dismissing Able Danger you aid the cover up of the total recklessness of the Clintons, their cabal, and their willing also-corrupted allies in media and institutions.
I have found you. This is my hello.
YOU are very very mistaken. I have never used that term "politically infirm" in my life. I AM NO Clinton supporter. I am a conservative Republican. The post to which you originally replied was NOT mine. I tried politely to tell you that. This is my goodbye.
Forgive me for not using italics. Mea maxima culpa! I did doublespace to separate my response in #601 from that post to which I was responding, #571. You might look at 571 and 601 again. You will see that I did not say that of which you accuse me. I copied and pasted that line from post 571.
If you follow the links backward as I did, you eventually come to this:
"To: strategofr
If Bush isn't covering up, what is he doing? Has he not noticed. Does this matter not concern him?
This is politically very infirm ground. He could be seen as trying to blaim the previous administration for 9/11
571 posted on 10/19/2005 8:55:35 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]"
If I read it corectly, because no one seems to be using italics to indicate that they are quoting someone, and perhaps, bvw, they don't know how - but it seems that "bnelson44" is the one who used the term "politically infirm" in their reply to "strategofr" and "Spanaway Lori" was quoting that person, and then replying to them!
You attacked Spanaway Lori without following the backward links.
You can click on the number for the post to which a person is responding, and if you do that with Spanaway Lori, you eventually get back to the post I included above.
Capisch?
IMO, you owe Spanway Lori an apology, and your argument is with bnelson44! I'm sure that you are going to correct your error ASAP?
FReegards,
TNT