[cyncooper]

I got as far as #1, which referred to him as "this kind" of social conservative, you can start there.

Number 1 is an excerpt from the article by the person who posted it, sans commentary approving or agreeing, so doesn't count.

Pretending to miss them

Well, I had to leave for a couple hours and I've read through post #200 so far, and I am not pretending a thing. I haven't seen ONE post saying what you claim. My character remains honorable, which is more than can be said for others.

[EternalVigilance]

It was obvious from the beginning that the original poster agreed with the article, and was seriously trying to push it.

But FReepers are far too smart for that. No person in their right mind would have jumped in after the first couple of posts to try and defend this silly premise.

But still yet, this thread is emblematic of much that has occured here in the last month.

Give FReepers enough time, and enough debate, and eventually the fair-minded men and women of goodwill here will reach the right conclusions. And if they don't ultimately agree on everything, at least they will reach a point of disagreement that is civil.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Well, I stand corrected, at least in that I read the first 50 again and this has been laughed off the board from the get go. I remember the Groupies came in later, who know what they said because they will excuse positively anything. What I find troubling is that I only saw one (R)nold supporter disagree with the premise of this positively ridiculous article (14) in the first 50, which I noticed when I started to get replies from the Usual Suspects later.

So, rather than spliting hairs, what say you about this article?