Replies

Actually, I understood and appreciated exactly what this was about, but please allow me to explain something to you. When you attack each and every person who posts something that does not meet with your exacting approval, the thread quickly turns into another animal and the original point is lost in the noise.

Now, let me explaing something to YOU. I've not ONCE attacked anyone - unless they have attacked me FIRST or made stupid comments. If you're going to make a comment, then you'd 1) better be right, 2) if it's a smart remark and in fun thats fine, 3) If it's a smart remark and wrong, I'm going to slam you for it.

That, my friend is my right - to defend myself - and I can certainly GIVE as good as I get. I've not "attacked" one person in this thread. I've been attacked, I've been called immature, and have been called ignorant more than once (and each time that has happened, I've pointed out that I'm not ignorant of the facts I've posted. However, the ignorance on the part of other posters is EVIDENT when the haven't read the thread, haven't actually read the article, can't keep ON TOPIC and sit and DENY that what was said was actually said).

Sorry. I'm not here to attack anyone, not even Romney. I'm here to bring to light a subject that bothers me. I've done so and I will continue to do so, even if he gets the nomination and I have to wind up voting for him (because he is the Republican nominee).

The original POINT of the article and the thread has NOT been lost at all, thanks in part to me and others pulling the rest of you BACK on topic. I keep seeing everyone saying "Romney didn't do that" or "That's not what he meant" or pointing the finger at Fred for some reason. THAT is precisely NOT what this thread is about.

it's about FACTS. So, perhaps you should stick to the facts.

While I am certainly no Romney supporter in the first place, this information was useful as another example of how inappropriate he is as a candidate for POTUS. Would I have totally rejected Romney based on this information alone? Probably not. Romney's ignorance of the importance of AHRO's is not going to bring down the system.

I haven't once stated stated that I would have totally rejected Romney on this one issue, it is one that is "near and dear to my heart". I've seen a lot of Amateurs over the years give an awful lot. Having someone simply write them off in this respect is at least bad manners, and at worst ignorance on his part.

I stated that this isn't the ONLY reason I'm not voting for him in several other posts.

It's not his ignorance of hams - it's his ignorance of the BIG PICTURE.

Please listen to what I am saying here.

Sorry. I'm not here to attack anyone, not even Romney.

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing. You claim that you are telling a truth and that Romney was wrong and this is indicitive of him and his style and so we shouldn't vote for him.

Your proof is a fuzzy article with half-quotes and the term "agitated" but it doesn't seem to really prove anything.

People need full quotes without interpretation vs. half-quotes with interpretation.