Dear Unreconstructed Selmerite,
1. "One who supports Selmer."
Usually, one tries to avoid defining a word with a definition that uses a word either derived from the word to be defined, or from which the word to be defined was derived.
Otherwise, the definition is circular.
So then, what's a Selmer?
2. Is it that reconstruction didn't work because it couldn't, or because you rejected it?
3. What does support for Selmer have to do with being a reconstructed Selmerite?
4. Okay. Just checking. Post #207 was one that I posted a few days ago. As age advances, memory declines. ;-)
5. What do you think the connection between these two responses (the first mine, the second yours) is?
"Forms of government will not substitute for the virtue of the people."
and,
"If one does believe that the Constitution is to protect minorities, it would make no sense if the only remedy available to violations of the Constitution is for the majority to oust those responsible for those violations.
"If your answer is not the former, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense."
Thanks,
sitetest
Selmer is a surnname, as Lincoln is a surname. Selmerite is a word derived from a surname, as Lincolnite is a word derived from a surname. Selemerite has roughly the same connection to Selmer as Lincolnite has to Lincoln. Although, needless to say, Selmer was on the losing side of a conflict, which Lincoln was not.
Is it that reconstruction didn't work because it couldn't, or because you rejected it?
It certainly didn't work on me. As for the result as a whole, I'm not very impressed. So, I guess in a way you could say that I rejected it.
What does support for Selmer have to do with being a reconstructed Selmerite?
I suppose reconstructed Selmerite would make as much sense as reconstructed Confederate.
5. What do you think the connection between these two responses (the first mine, the second yours) is?
"Forms of government will not substitute for the virtue of the people."
and,
"If one does believe that the Constitution is to protect minorities, it would make no sense if the only remedy available to violations of the Constitution is for the majority to oust those responsible for those violations.
"If your answer is not the former, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense."
Before the latter I said:
"What did you say the purpose of the Constitution was? To protect the majority from politicians, the minorities from the majority, or both?"
Of course, if you hold that the only purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to ensure that the people (or rather its majority) rule, which I do suspect, then "your answer is the former" and "your reasoning makes absolutely no sense" does not apply.