"Ilk"? What a quaint term./s Nice rewrite of history, too.
... You of all people then jumped in and claimed, 387, that: You have twisted this every which way...
Yep, you did. After watching you go on for over 100 posts, completely ignoring the heart of the disagreement initially between KeithCu and nicmarlo (and others)--engaging in the argument nonetheless and misrepresenting others words--I asked you a simple question yes or no question in 387. No demands whatsoever... just a question. When you claimed to have answered it (but clearly hadn't), I asked again in 485. All of your links to posts made by others, or posts you made that preceded my question, are pretty superfluous.
So what? It was never central to my point...
Now there is the problem. I was not interested in your central point but notwithstanding I did respond to your two posts directed to me about your central point (My post #497 responded to your #384/#494).
When you learn how to have a civil, honest discussion without personally insulting and attacking others, get back to me. Or not. It matters little.
Yes, I ignored the initial disagreement between whatzhisface and nicmarlo. I thought it was petty and obvious that, if anyone took whatzhisface as saying there was no free speech at rallies, that nicmarlo was right.
Why go on and on about the obvious: we all know each person has the right to protest at political rallies.
Further, if you and nicmarlo did not want to engage my point, why didn't you ignore it or state your opposition to my view and move on, as I did? I'm am not going to demand, as you do, that you not ignore my argument.
Who are you to dictate which points on a thread I engage or ignore?
I repeatedly agreed that a person has the right to protest at a rally. Show me where I said otherwise or take back your accusation that I somehow "twisted" the debate.
Indeed, you have given not one example of something you think I "twisted."
By the way, nicmarlo was the first one to use the word “ilk.” I have time to look it up for you, if you won’t. I thought you would find “ilk” perfectly acceptable, as nicmarlo does.
"Ilk"? What a quaint term./s Nice rewrite of history, too.
Just a reminder: nicmarlo used "ilk" first, so thank him for the quaintness.
As for "nice rewrite of history, too": Show me.
You continually make this accusation and yet have not provided one example.
For your convenience, I set out a list of posts in a recent post to nicmarlo. In a recent post to you, I set out and provided you the links to the ONLY times I have addressed the "interrupt" concept, as well as the links to posts showing how you and nicmarlo were the ones who ASKED me to address that concept.
So for me to state "I have ONLY responded to the "interrupt" concept when you and your ilk (thanks for the word, nicmarlo!) kept asking me to" is completely accurate.
Then you should have ignored it. That's pretty much what you do on threads.
But what you can't do is claim that I have to address YOUR point.
The fact, however, is that I did address your/nicmarlo's point. I agreed that people have a right to protest. I agreed, as in the "yelling fire in a theater" example, that that right does have some limits.
Please tell me what else I should have done in your eyes to address the "central point" of the disagreement between whatzhisname and nicmarlo. What did I miss?
No, they're not because they prove that I NEVER raised this issue and that I ONLY responded to it because you and nicmarlo kept on and on it. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
My goodness, I don't think you are reading very well.
Your #497, which I have copied below, was largely about the "interrupt" concept raised by ole whatzhisname. You did, in your last paragraph, address my central point, which was about the effectiveness of the protest. In my next post to you, I told you I respected your opinion on my point.
You said you were directing your comments to my central point in your posts ## 384 and 494.
I agree that you did so in #384. And thank you for that! As I posted to you subsequently, I "respect your opinion" on whether the protests were effective.
As for responding to my #494, however, that post was wholly about the "interrupt" concept raised by whatzhisname and I posted it in response to YOUR # 485, which was wholly about your thoughts on the "interrupt" concept raised by ole whatzhisname.
YOUR #485 was a response to my #454," which was wholly about the "interrupt" concept and only posted in response to YOUR #387.
So, yes, you did briefly engage my central point raising the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the protest. And for that, I thank you and, again, as I posted thereafter, I "respect your opinion."
However, as you can see, the vast majority of your energy posting to me was spent on a your rant (which was a good one, but irrelevant to my point) on the "interrupt" concept" raised by whatzhisname.
Again, you have no obligation to discuss my point.
But you have no right to claim I have an obligation to discuss, and keep discussing, your point (about the disagreement on the "interrupt" concept").
Clearly, you were the one who insisted on engaging me on oldwhatzhisname's "interrupt" concept. And that's okay.
But then why claim I was the one raising it and "focusing" on it and using it to "twist" the debate? Why is making that accusation so important to you?
I answered you when you raised it. I answered it when the other poster raised it. Period. It was never mentioned anywhere else by me.
Here's your #497, which was largely about the "interrupt" concept raised by whatzhisname, NOT my central point, as you claim, for your reading convenience in light of the above:
#497 -
(Responding to YOUR ##387 and 485) I agree with KeithCu’s statement to the extent that if the “interruption” meets the threshold for constituting an interruption that keeps the speaker from exercising his right to free speech, then that interruption is not allowed.
And yet that scenario of "interruption, was not what was described in any of the media reports.
That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police.
HUH? Show me that report, would ya? I can't find that he was "interrupted" anywhere, let alone creating an environment where Rudy was unable to speak. The guy was riding in a parade! For every person yelling "baby killer," there were probably dozens more yelling "Go Rudy" (or whatever).
I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.
You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it helped or hurt the pro-life movement but probably served to enlighten some voters as to Giuliani's support for abortion and funding thereof. I seriously doubt it would "strenghten Giuliani" except maybe he got a few more votes from pro-abortionists. I would guess he lost at least an equal amount from pro-lifers who were not familiar with his positions.