I didn't say your remarks were juvenile, but referred to a general trend in which many Freepers villify whoever might object to a holy writ of Dubya and Rumsfeld. You only inferred that I was criticizing you specifically.
But your question is fair, so I've reviewed the thread to identify the specific remarks which I believe added nothing to anyone's understanding of the issue at hand. They are as follows:
"Hackworthless is yaesterday's news. He's gone over to the dark side."
"Hack is a great example of a vain contrarian."
"If Hackup is on Hannity Monday, I'm going to be very upset. This guy is definitely losing his mind."
"He is about as relevant as a WWI vet critiquing the Korean War, and wondering why there aren't any horse cavalry units being deployed."
Though mild by recent standards, these types of ad hominem attacks have become typical on FreeRepublic, popping up every time certain individuals or publications are mentioned. Such behavior adds nothing to adult conversation, and has served only to silence any thoughtful discussion of the real issues involved in those threads. There is plenty of venom here toward Hackworth for daring to be a skunk at the garden party, but where is the principled disagreement on the issues he raises?
As I said earlier, while I might not agree with Hackworth's every analysis, I would never totally disregard an experienced and knowledgable source. Discussion and disagreement on vital issues is a very healthy thing.
>>>You only inferred that I was criticizing you specifically.
For obvious and relevent reasons.