Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg
I think you do get it. When people are in an open forum, attempting to defend their side of a subject, and someone else jumps in to cite a rule against defense, I would say that person is trying to change the subject, NOT defend the rule makers. Especially when that person seems to be a serial rule cop, with no other reason to live except to point out the breaking/potential breaking of the rule. Did you ever watch Leave it to Beaver? Do you remember Judy? Enough said.

I'm saying that in the heat of discussion, things get lively sometimes. Good grief. Let it be. If not, that's why caucus threads were invented. So people could sip tea and ponder the universe.

1,533 posted on 09/07/2011 7:10:59 AM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies ]


To: smvoice
Maybe your beef, then, is with the Moderator?

It's my strict constructionist thing. (Okay. I admit that sounds weird coming from a Catholics.) I've never liked it when people say at, say, the super bowl, "Let them play football," when what they mean is that the refs shouldn't enforce the rules.

Oh well.Not important.

1,565 posted on 09/07/2011 8:31:37 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In my Father's trailer park are many double-wides. (apologies to Iscool))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1533 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson