your ridiculous claim that the earlobe comment was steeped in homoeroticism
vs.
what I said way back in this thread:
"The ear-lobe story was definitely not OK, it was slanted to try to appear homoerotic or at least hint at it."
_____________________________________
what is your agenda in distorting what I said? and what kind of person do you think you are addressing? and why is your argument style essentially name-calling: eg: ridiculous, preposterous, outlandish ?
Are you trying to persuade me of something? Then why change what I said? why call me names? why state that I am bizarre and disturbed ...and the rest?
Really, what are your intentions and aim?
Are you going to respond to my questions with another burst from your cannon about how dare I make such terrible suggestions about Ron Reagan who would never dream of doing any such thing? If so spare me, please.
I 've only bothered to respond to this after 10 times telling myself I would not, because I foolishly believe that most people are of good will and will eventually engage in discussion, not name-calling.
Hey, I dont have anything invested in the claim that the earlobe story was trying to play around the edges at Ron and his friends are uptight and would get spooked by something ambiguously perhaps suggesting something of a homoerotic nature about the national hero while at the same time not actually doing so and letting anyone who claimed it to be so to be easily dismissed as a perve.
That's my perception of what Ron was trying to do. If I was wrong, so what. Are you trying to tell me that no one should dare say that they perceive such a thing on this FR site becaue otherwise the castigators will arise to call names? Is that what you really want to convey?
You're more than welcome to claim anything you want, as it is my right to press forward with a counterargument. However, you seem to think that you can post whatever you want and be free from any criticism; it doesn't work that way.