|
Personal animosity? The list of posters on this forum that warrant that label is pretty short, and you're not on it.
I don't really care what you think about me, but I am going to challenge any of your stated misperceptions based on my actual comments on this thread.
I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Like it or not, we all have histories here. You know as well as I do that after a while, you get a pretty good idea of what people's positions are without them having to state it explicitly on every single thread.
It doesn't take much for you to find fault with GWB. This is hardly some earth-shaking secret. Knowing that, it's fairly easy to make assumptions from what you say to what you mean.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. You want me to pick out the exact words you used to pick at the guy in this thread? I can't, and we both know that. In this thread, you did not "exactly" criticize him. You want me to pull something from another thread? I tried that yesterday, and the first two threads you were supposed to be in didn't have any comments I could find from you. I decided that was becoming more trouble than it was worth for something that really doesn't matter all that much to me.
We'll do this the easy way. Apparently, I've touched a nerve with you. I'm sorry. I'm sure we both have better things to do than carry on this useless spitting match.
And to recap, I really don't have any personal animosity, or disgust, or whatever other word you would like to use towards you. You've been around a long time (like me), you contribute to the discussion (like me) and I'm pretty sure you contribute financially (like me). If we disagree on subjects (as we have in the past and will again) we don't have to be thin-skinned about it.
It's not like we're liberals, y'know.
|
|
You're really reading a lot into the few words I've thrown out here.
So anotherwords, this is all my fault (my overreaction). That's a bit rich.
Personal animosity? The list of posters on this forum that warrant that label is pretty short, and you're not on it.
Okay lets look at some of your comments to me, since you seem to have forgotten them.
In post 25 you stated: So, all it takes is a bunch of conjecture and leftist make-believe neatly encapsulated from a site named iafrica.com and you guys get your shorts in a bunch. Of course, it's not like you ever pass up an opportunity to disparage GWB, so why am I surprised? With friends like you guys, who needs enemies?
That was false premises one and two. I don't disparage Bush all the time and the implication that I am hostile to Bush, in essence an enemy, is also false.
I did not disparage George Bush here. Would you have objected to me accusing you of doing that? You also stated that I never pass up an opportunity to disparage George Bush. Since I didn't do that here, you're obviously wrong. Would you have objected to me accusing you of that? Out of the individuals on this thread, you chose to address those comments to me, as well as others. That's personal. If you wished to make a non-personal comment you should have made a blanket statement without naming individuals.
In post 36 you stated: It may be your own policy statement, but you had no problem believing it was true. Not a verifiable statement in the whole article (unless you count the Biden quotes) and you're ready to accept it as gospel.
I made no attempt to evaluate this article on this thread. Your assessment that I was ready to accept it as gospel is not supportable.
This was false premise three.
Inpost 47 you stated: You're not dealing with some newbie that hopped on FR yesterday, and I don't have any "misperceptions" about you.
I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but you obviously do have misperceptions about me. Based on the comments I've quoted here, it's indisputable.
This was false premise four.
Again, from post 47: But I just can't wait to hear your opinions re: GWB's NK policy.
Is this the tone you take with people you bear no personal animosity? The implication is that I must disagee with Bush.
That was false premise five.
Insofar as I have seen, Bush has made few substantive statements with regard to North Korea. I agreed with his initial statement that North Korea was part of an Axis of Evil. I agree with the assessment that North Korea's entry into the "nuclear club" is very problematic. I agree with his efforts to consult with periferal nations in the region. I agree with his movements of military resources into the region.
You don't know jack about me do you.
I don't really care what you think about me, but I am going to challenge any of your stated misperceptions based on my actual comments on this thread.
I didn't misrepresent anything you said. (6) Like it or not, we all have histories here. You know as well as I do that after a while, you get a pretty good idea of what people's positions are without them having to state it explicitly on every single thread. It doesn't take much for you to find fault with GWB. (7) This is hardly some earth-shaking secret. Knowing that, it's fairly easy to make assumptions from what you say to what you mean. (8)
That was false premise six.
You misrepresented everything I said on this thread.
Then there's false premise seven.
Even at best this is a half-truth. I support Bush on many issues. The implication is that I am silent, just lurking for the opportunity to pounce. This thread disproves that theory. Sadly you can't acknowledge this fact.
Here's false premise number eight.
Obviosly it isn't very easy for you to make accurate assumptions based on anything I've said.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. (9) You want me to pick out the exact words you used to pick at the guy in this thread? I can't, and we both know that. (1) In this thread, you did not "exactly" criticize him. (10) You want me to pull something from another thread? I tried that yesterday, and the first two threads you were supposed to be in didn't have any comments I could find from you. (2) I decided that was becoming more trouble than it was worth for something that really doesn't matter all that much to me. (11)
I'm sorry fella, but that's false premise number nine.
I did not seek you out on this thread. Even when I called you on your misperception, you stuck with your original premise and added to it. You made charges you couldn't support and I called you on it. You instigated this discussion, I didn't.
Well whadya know. This is your first correct premise.
Look, I don't gain much glee from this. The point was to call you on your false premise, have you gracefully admit the error, we'd both laugh about it and forget it. Instead you refused to do so and continued to make comments that were either patently false, or simply serious mischaricterizations.
False premise ten.
The implication is that I besmirched Bush by inuendo. I did no such thing. You know it. I know it. Just flat out admit I didn't do the things you accused me of with no qualifiers.
Correct premise two.
Okay, you tried to find a disparaging remark from me about Bush. At least you tried. I have disputed Bush's policies at times. Immigration is an area where I stridently disagree with his policies. I believe I made a fairly pointed statement yesterday regard his appointment of an unqualified individual to head up the INS under the new name. If you would have found that statement, what would it prove? You seem to think that one or even a series of stated disagreements makes me a Bush hater. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of well meaning people who insult other based on false premises. My record of support for Bush will show strident support for him across this forum. It will also show that I take him to task when I think it's warranted.
False premise eleven.
At this point, after making false premise eleven, why don't we just agree that this was VERY important to you.
We'll do this the easy way. Apparently, I've touched a nerve with you. I'm sorry. (3) I'm sure we both have better things to do than carry on this useless spitting match. (12)
Correct premise three.
I'm going to accept your appology even though you've made it quite clear you still don't understand why I called you on your comments. In fact you've said yourself that you never mischaracterized my offering here, or my forum participation at large. So I think my acceptanc of your appology is more consideration than you have given me.
False premise twelve.
Setting the record straight is never useless. If I had inpugned your character, would you think it useless to respond?
And to recap, I really don't have any personal animosity, or disgust, or whatever other word you would like to use towards you. You've been around a long time (like me), you contribute to the discussion (like me) and I'm pretty sure you contribute financially (like me).
False premise thirteen.
I don't go around the forum trashing people based on false premises, so I'd have to disagree that I contribute to the discussion like you do.
If we disagree on subjects (as we have in the past and will again) we don't have to be thin-skinned about it.
False premise fourteen.
It is not being "thin skinned" to call someone to account for making false premises regarding your character. Your attempt to excuse away what you did on this thread is distrubing to me. I have seen it so many times in the last three years, that I'm sick of it. You folks throw around the accusations, refuse to recant when faced with the truth, then seek to minimize the whole incident when you can't back up your charges.
It's not like we're liberals, y'know.
False premise fifteen.
Look I'm not calling you a liberal, but your efforts on this thread represent classic leftist tactics.
1. You make an assessment that you don't like the messenger, so you do your best to trash their character.
2. When called on it, you state that your charges were dead on, then pile on more false charges.
3. When you can't back up any of this, you basicly say, "So what! Who cares. It isn't imporant."
4. When push comes to shove, you contine to say you didn't make any mischaracterizations, then offer an appology surrounded by attempts to excuse away your efforts and belittle the person who objected to them.
49 posted on 03/06/2003 10:02 AM PST by Cable225
Yep, this is a very long-winded response. If a person is willing to sit there and make a substantial post to me that is as full of untruths, misrepresentations and weasle words as you did, I'm going to take the time to call them on every one of them.
This is a classic example of the BushBot mentality. That's why I am documenting it on this thread. Some of you folks are quite content to insult everyone on the forum rather than act in a rational manner with folks who bear you, your politician, and conservatism at large no animosity.
Nearly every single day, I slam people in the public who trash Bush unfairly. I do it right here on this forum. I create graphics that broadly support him and conservatism. And no, I am nobody's doormat. I supported Pat Buchanan during the last election. I take him to task on this forum. I have stridently in the last few weeks regarding Iraq. If I'm going to take him to task, I'm certainnly going to take Bush to task from time to time.
If you and your cohorts would purchase a clue, you would realize that folks are more often than not multi-faceted. I just posted a series of graphic links. Click on the one on the right side. It will link you to a sign/poster page. Look around over there. If you can find one sign that is detrimental to President Bush, I'll be very surprised.
Knock off the attacks on people who have not demonstrated any "valid" reason for you to attack them. If I make a statement you disagree with, by all means take me to task for it.
Thanks for the discussion.