Replies

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,"

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.

Everyone makes certain assumptions when they critique an article. Do you read an article from a liberal without going in with a preconceived bias? No, because everyone has preconceived ideas about everything. It's perfectly normal to do so. You made certain assumptions with your posts. For example, you assumed this woman was real. You assumed her article was 100% factual. You assume she's dead now. You assumed I just didn't make this article up myself and post it.

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.

My post is an analytical review of Claire Wolfe's article, which is based on Deb Pulaski's story. I don't think Richard Nixon or any other controversial dead figure has had any break from criticism, and I mean vicious ones like the ones you are so fond of mentioning. As I said before to another poster, you are free to disagree. That's the beauty of this Country, that's the beauty of not being slaves!

I based it on examples of past threads I have run into on this public forum,…

Which tread are those the Freeoples?

I in no way came on this thread to argue with William Wallace, sirgawain, or most of all, you.

Nah, you just came in to insult Victoria and anyone who happened to agree with her and expected us to take it. The truth is you CLAIM you didn't come here to argue, but your comportment on this thread belies your words.

For example:

WW (to Texoma): Victoria Delsoul lost both her grandfathers to Fascism, in Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy. I daresay she knows a great deal more about freedom and tyranny than someone like you.

You (apropos of nothing): I know of someone who lost three uncles (fathers, husband, sons, and brothers each) defending freedom and defying the attempts of power hungry governments from doing even more destruction. Does that mean this person knows more about how to defend true freedom than anyone else?

You dismiss someone's personal tragedy by turning it into a joke and a topping contest! Do you compare tattoo sizes with Holocaust survivors too? You should be ashamed of yourself, but that requires a conscience.

You implied that I was a hypocrite for calling Texoma on her personal attacks, equating my criticism of an article with the juvenile name calling directed at Victoria and others. This after you insulted Victoria and sirgawain who never has a bad word to say to anyone. The hypocrite on this thread is you.

You accuse us of making unwarranted assumptions about the woman in the article on the basis of just one article. Well what else do we have to go on? Yet you have no problem making unfair assumptions about sirgawain's motives on the basis of ONE post out of literally THOUSANDS of posts he's made.

You insinuated (without evidence) that the ONLY reason sirgawain would change his mind was because he and Victoria have a relationship. You simply made up a story about them, belittling him and implying that no one could have been persuaded by her post, and tried to hide your insults behind a faux compliment (she's a nice girl, she wouldn't drop you for that!)

Incidentally, did it ever cross your mind that this dying woman whose honor you are defending might be a literary device used by the author of the piece to make her ideas more palatable? And that you attacked a real person who befriended you from the day you came to the forum in defense of a fictional character? You insult her and call her names (all because of ONE post, but how dare we judge this woman based on ONE article!) Victoria responds to your insults with civility and you act like you were the one who was insulted! Do I detect a note of *jealousy* perhaps? Can you say mea culpa Susan? I knew you could.

What really galls me is when you first started posting, most people ignored you, but Victoria made it a point to respond to you. She started flagging you and encouraged me to do likewise, simply because you were new and she remembered what it was like to be a newbie and be ignored by most FReepers. But now you that you have your little clique, so you can afford to trash the one person who befriended you when you didn't know anyone. YOU are the one who should be ashamed of yourself!

As you now see, Princess Victoria has a few indulgent uncle types who will defend her inane and vaccuous poutings against any critics. It's rather ludicrous, but that's just the way some people are. Let's leave them to their self impressed little circle. Just be content in the knowledge that they'll continue to stand on the sidelines and "deplore" what government does instead of joining any effort to resist. At least they won't be underfoot.