Replies

DiogenesLamp: "Rockrr's messages are short and usually nothing more than some criticism.
They seldom contain any deeper meaning than 'You suck.' "

Sometimes that's the only appropriate response.
For example, if you were to post, in effect: "Lincoln sucks" there's really no response to that except: "No, you suck," or potentially, "Davis sucked", etc.
At that point there's no debate over data or ideas, just name-calling -- so to such a challenge, such a response is all that's needed.

Now, despite that, suppose I were to respond to your claim that "Lincoln sucked" with a serious medical explanation that, no, "sucking chest wound" is not at all what Lincoln suffered on April 14, 1865, but rather a gaping head-wound which after nine hours took his life and as Secretary of War Stanton said, saluting: "Now he belongs to the ages".
But the problem with such a response is, it doesn't address the urgent need generated by your baseless accusation that "Lincoln sucks", and that need is to turn your accusation against Lincoln back on yourself, which is what rockrr is doing with his response of: "No, you suck."

DiogenesLamp: "While I applaud the brevity, I would like some content with more calories in it. "

And yet you invariably respond to such "calories" by ignoring them.

DiogenesLamp: "Your messages are often too long, but that is not the only thing wrong with them.
The more problematic issue is that everything you write starts of with a biased premise with little interest in trying to be objective."

As compared to unbiased, objective DiogenesLamp??
You're joking, right?

Here's your problem: you never studied real history.
Sure in school you read some textbook summaries, but ever since you've been swilling down Lost Causer lies & nonsense, unfiltered by any strainer of truth.
And any real facts you may have stumbled-on you simply toss out as irrelevant to your pro-Confederate narrative.

And yet, somehow you consider yourself and your bag-of-nonsense ideas equally valid "history" which deserves "unbiased" & "objective" consideration!
It's not and they don't and posters like x and Bull Snipe who may treat you more respectfully than you deserve are not in any way yielding on that point.

DiogenesLamp: "They leave me with the impression that they are the work of an unapproachable mind.
There is no upside to engaging."

Thus speaketh the unapproachable mind of DiogenesLamp.
And if you doubt me on this, then simply cite some "examples against interest", where you have accepted some argument or data from, say, x or Bull Snipe that contradicts your previous Lost Causer narrative.
I've never seen it happen.

Let me give two examples of my own from several years ago:

1) Did FDR "know" about Pearl Harbor ahead of time?
I had been taught "yes" but was eventually persuaded "no".
2) Was "Hitler's Pope" pro-Nazi?
I had read "yes" but eventually learned "no, just the opposite".

In both cases I was persuaded by facts & reason, not by any ad-hominem or other emotional appeal.

So here's the bottom line: DiogenesLamp posts on Free Republic to convince us the Union was evil and Confederates good, nothing "objective", nothing "unbiased", nothing "approachable" in your mind about that.
You're a salesman selling your product, regardless of how defective, you have no self-interest in any others, regardless of how attractive they may be.

The rest of us are only here to correct the false data, false narrative and false accusations from our Lost Causer mythologizers.
Our posts are not "unbiased" regarding facts & truth, those are what we support, wherever they lead.