Posted on 12/10/2001 10:27:30 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Tell me, is criticism of a dead person's writing off limits?
Nor is defending a dead person's writings from vicious attack based on assupmtions.
I've seen that many times. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
Well done.
A compliment??
Pardon me a moment while I faint dead away.....
But first let me say, "Thank-you". :-)
And what assumptions did you have to make for this malicious comment, which I've just noticed:
" If you disagree with her I'm sure she won't drop you,"
Is this another erroneous "mistake" like this one?
Susangirl: To use Thoreau's "Ulysses" as somehow pertaining to this womans article is false.
William Wallace: Thoreau didn't write Ulysses. sirgawain was referring to one of his favorite poems by Tennyson. The poem IS the antithesis of this woman. Ulysses refuses to give up despite age and infirmity. And, unlike the whiny woman in the article, he trusts his dutiful son to take care of things after Ulysses is dead.
The vicious attacks are not coming from me!
I'm sorry, did I assume wrong? Luckily you are alive and can defend yourself against false assumptions.
I based it on examples of past threads I have run into on this public forum, as well as his implication that he had viewed this article another way until you opposed it.
However, I now regret making that statement. I think it is entirely possible that your post actually did impress him.
The vicious attacks are not coming from me!
I'm sorry but I must disagree. Your entire post was a high handed slap in the face of this woman. You stated NO facts but those assumptions you pulled from thin air. This in turn DID, indeed, incite vicious attacks by your cheerleaders. If one knows one has such a following, I should think it would make one feel even more strongly the burden to make double sure that the statements one knows will be cheered, regardless, are based on firm, solid, just plain old-fashioned fairness and decency. Your post reads very well, but has no truth or substance as it pertains to what this woman wrote, but rather what you added to it through your interpretation.
As for the Ulysses "mistake". Yes, I drew a blank on the author. So what? I am one that is not afraid to own up to the fact that I make mistakes sometimes. Do you fault me for this? So be it.
I in no way came on this thread to argue with William Wallace, sirgawain, or most of all, you. But I will not sit by and see someone unfairly raked over the coals by anyone.
I have done my best to respond with civility, but as I am close to losing any semblance of it, I refuse to argue this any further. See it the way you wish, and say what you wish. My replies still stand.
As you read the article, and know the government, I'm sure you realize that she was not refering to filling out forms in triplicate in order to get them to pay anything. Rather the reality that one planning such a project would require clearance from the government.
See what a compliment to me can get ya?
It is interesting to watch to responses. Thanks again.
Is it wrong that you assumed these things? No, you used evidence from the article to reinforce your assumptions. Victoria did the same. She got something different from the article than what you got. That seems to bother you a great deal.
Excellent reply, but WW, there you go again - debating against "feelings". Don't you just feel how bad the government is?
See it as you wish and say what you wish. But the truth is still the truth.
I based it on examples of past threads I have run into on this public forum,…
Which tread are those the Freeoples?
And you alone hold that knowledge, I see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.