Replies

I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from. Here's the opening 'shot' of his vanity:

Did Race play a role in the Port Deal discussions? The very charge is met by the likes of Sean Hannity and others with Righteous Indigination. In fact, to mention it makes you the true problem. Mark Levin in fact called a MAjor General a dirtbag over that charge. The below cartoons may be an issue now in the UAE. They are not cartoons about that ole darn prophet however. THere will be no boycotts over these but remember still they dont help things. The cartoonist just give us what we want sometimes. From MSNBC the following cartoon. There were many others that through the glory of the net are available to all.

One line of his vanity was about Mark Levin calling the Major General a dirtbag. One line...his whole rant was not directed at Mr. Levin. He also directed it towards Sean Hannity and cartoons from MSNBC.

I personally don't see his opening as specifically calling out Mr. Levin. He used 3 separate examples to support his contention of racism being an issue. It just so happened Mr. Levin was on FR when the rant was published and posted almost immediately taking exception to a statement attributed to him.

You're treating his rant as if it's directed solely at one person which it wasn't. As far as research, why would he research something he'd posted at the beginning of a thread 3 days ago and where he'd not been challenged? Not one FReeper stated he'd misheard holdonnow on the initial thread. I read the thread in question last night and the link is posted somewhere on this thread but I just don't have the fortitude to once again read through this whole thread in order to reference it in this particular post.

Please don't act as if the sole purpose of this thread was to call into question the integrity of a very respected, distinguished talk show host and attorney as it wasn't. Do some research of your own before you make the accusation this thread was solely to call out Mark Levin.

If he had not started a vanity attack thread-using some of the same scurrilous accusations that had been lodged by certain advocates of the DP World terminal agreement-his advocacy would be immaterial.

I'm not sure which "same scurrilous accusations" you're referring to in this particular paragraph. To me it appeared the main thrust of the vanity was to point out the cartoons he deemed to be racist. One text sentence was directed at Hannity and one text sentence was directed at Levin. The remaining "accusations" were comprised of cartoons. I suppose in your mind he shouldn't have made mention of either Hannity or Levin and only drawn attention to the cartoons. Is that your issue, that he shouldn't have mentioned Hannity or Levin and simply based his vanity on the one source of the cartoons?

As a side note, I want to apologize if I'm being somewhat dense or negative or combative or whatever. There have been numerous fires set by arsonists in my area and we've had some very bad fires as a result. Last night the police were looking for someone seen trying to set fires at different places near my home. While they didn't find any fires, the smell of woodsmoke was very strong and I was hesitant to go to bed until the all clear was called (which was very close to dawn this morning). (I live in rural Oklahoma and fires have encroached on our small town.)