Libs: Making money off the war dead.

[DKW 86 7,411]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...8p-368570c.html

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

[TexasTiger 12,812]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...8p-368570c.html

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

251196[/snapback]

By your logic, my local paper is making money off of the war dead when it publishes the names of the soldiers who have died.

[DKW 86 7,411]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...8p-368570c.html

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

251196[/snapback]

By your logic, my local paper is making money off of the war dead when it publishes the names of the soldiers who have died.

251207[/snapback]

Is your local paper selling merchandise?

[TexasTiger 12,812]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...8p-368570c.html

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

251196[/snapback]

By your logic, my local paper is making money off of the war dead when it publishes the names of the soldiers who have died.

251207[/snapback]

Is your local paper selling merchandise?

251351[/snapback]

Its selling newspapers. But consider this scenario: Newsmax is hawking shirts that say on the front: "Support the President in his war on terror." On the back, it lists over 2000 of the soldiers who have died and says, "They paid the ultimate price for your freedom."

If a mother whose son was listed on that shirt protested because she opposed the war, how would she be treated by the far right?

[DKW 86 7,411]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...8p-368570c.html

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

251196[/snapback]

By your logic, my local paper is making money off of the war dead when it publishes the names of the soldiers who have died.

251207[/snapback]

Is your local paper selling merchandise?

251351[/snapback]

Its selling newspapers. But consider this scenario: Newsmax is hawking shirts that say on the front: "Support the President in his war on terror." On the back, it lists over 2000 of the soldiers who have died and says, "They paid the ultimate price for your freedom."

If a mother whose son was listed on that shirt protested because she opposed the war, how would she be treated by the far right?

251551[/snapback]

I would 100% support HER and would demand that her sons name be removed from the list. I would hope thay would agree and move proactively to protect the greiving mother's wishes.

See Tex, unlike the Libs, I see and care for both sides. If Cindy Sheehan wanted her son's name removed I would be the same way. The names should be removed if they are asked to remove them by the families.

[MDM4AU 330]

If a mother whose son was listed on that shirt protested because she opposed the war, how would she be treated by the far right?

251551[/snapback]

Tex, the problem here is that one mother doesn't want someone making money off the name of her fallen son for something she apparently doesn't agree with (The Anti-War Shirt). She asked that they remove her son's name and the shirt people refused. It was reported this morning that the group basically said, regardless of how many requests they received they wouldn't remove any names.

I think making money this way is detestable. Listing the dead to make money divisively is at the very least irreverent. But as of right now, it is legal. As far as I know, no-one is asking the people selling the right's version of this shirt to stop or to remove their loved one's name. And I think right now that that is the key.

We have a woman asking that her son's name be removed from a shirt and you appear more worried about the shot Libs took in the title of this thread due to DKW's title and want to insinuate that there is some sort of political hypocrisy.

Serious question...what is your opinion on this issue? Should the shirt makers remove the names if asked?

[TexasTiger 12,812]

If a mother whose son was listed on that shirt protested because she opposed the war, how would she be treated by the far right?

251551[/snapback]

Tex, the problem here is that one mother doesn't want someone making money off the name of her fallen son for something she apparently doesn't agree with (The Anti-War Shirt). She asked that they remove her son's name and the shirt people refused. It was reported this morning that the group basically said, regardless of how many requests they received they wouldn't remove any names.

I think making money this way is detestable. Listing the dead to make money divisively is at the very least irreverent. But as of right now, it is legal. As far as I know, no-one is asking the people selling the right's version of this shirt to stop or to remove their loved one's name. And I think right now that that is the key.

We have a woman asking that her son's name be removed from a shirt and you appear more worried about the shot Libs took in the title of this thread due to DKW's title and want to insinuate that there is some sort of political hypocrisy.

Serious question...what is your opinion on this issue? Should the shirt makers remove the names if asked?

251648[/snapback]

Sure. I would. You're right. David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing. This is an individual. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who would do alot of the same damn things.

[DKW 86 7,411]

The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

Please show me a Conservative using these statements?

[MDM4AU 330]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

252109[/snapback]

Those are right fine questions. I'm also curious what would cause a self professed moderate to hate conservatives so much and rush to defend liberalism in the manner to which he does.

I eagerly await his reply.

[TexasTiger 12,812]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

252109[/snapback]

"Why do you care?" is a good question. Why do you care? David and I were having an exchange and you jump in like you're defending your sweetheart. Ironic, ain't it? In fact, you care so much that you are motivated to search through my posts to find that quote from June 11th. So what really got under your skin to motivate you so much, I mean other than the fact that the reply to David came from Texas Tiger?

It's funny how you read all the posts that get put on this board and this in the one you feel the need to call out as "anger filled"? I know you like to portray yourself as being a pretty objective guy, but that is obviously not the case. If you want "anger filled", mention Teddy Kennedy around David. There are all sorts of angry rants posted daily by so-called conservatives on this board. In fact, that is just about all Tigermike posts. Your hypocrisy is pretty amazing on this one, but your comments are at least usually smarter than this. I read this thread again, and have to ask what in my posts on this thread strikes you as so "anger filled" to warrant your comment? Especially in comparison to so many of the posts on this board?

But yes, I consider myself a moderate. When I am on liberal forums I tend to call out the liberals that reply reflexively instead of thoughtfully. On this forum, there aren't any extreme liberals that post regularly. On the other hand, almost all of the people who consider themselves conservative are extreme right wingers who are utterly predictable on almost every issue. The only two that stand out as consistenly thoughtful and reflective are Titan and Otter, and they don't waste too much of their time here anymore.

But even Otter the other day had a post that reflects the tendency of most conservatives. He titled his post regarding William F. Buckley assessment of Bush as not being a conservative as Buckley concluding Bush was liberal. That wan't Buckley's assertion. But in recent years most conservatives label anything not like them as "liberal." Most conservatives don't recognize a moderate. Most tend to see the world in black and white terms. To see shades of gray is to be wishy-washy and weak, and well, liberal. Most conservatives think that John McCain is a moderate and have even convinced many in the media. That is true only to the extent that moderate means, "not always doctrinaire." McCain is a conservative, he just isn't a consistenly reflexive one.

If I described someone to you as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, most on this board would instantly label him liberal. But that would accurately describe Barry Goldwater who laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan. On this board, GOLDWATER would be derided as a "lib."

My initial reply to David was actually a pretty gentle and calm challenge to this same thing. One individual does something and it's the "Libs." My reply to you, was hardly partisan. In fact, it simply showed balance:

I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing. This is an individual. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who would do alot of the same damn things.

[Tiger Al 0]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

252109[/snapback]

"Why do you care?" is a good question. Why do you care? David and I were having an exchange and you jump in like you're defending your sweetheart. Ironic, ain't it? In fact, you care so much that you are motivated to search through my posts to find that quote from June 11th. So what really got under your skin to motivate you so much, I mean other than the fact that the reply to David came from Texas Tiger?

It's funny how you read all the posts that get put on this board and this in the one you feel the need to call out as "anger filled"? I know you like to portray yourself as being a pretty objective guy, but that is obviously not the case. If you want "anger filled", mention Teddy Kennedy around David. There are all sorts of angry rants posted daily by so-called conservatives on this board. In fact, that is just about all Tigermike posts. Your hypocrisy is pretty amazing on this one, but your comments are at least usually smarter than this. I read this thread again, and have to ask what in my posts on this thread strikes you as so "anger filled" to warrant your comment? Especially in comparison to so many of the posts on this board?

But yes, I consider myself a moderate. When I am on liberal forums I tend to call out the liberals that reply reflexively instead of thoughtfully. On this forum, there aren't any extreme liberals that post regularly. On the other hand, almost all of the people who consider themselves conservative are extreme right wingers who are utterly predictable on almost every issue. The only two that stand out as consistenly thoughtful and reflective are Titan and Otter, and they don't waste too much of their time here anymore.

But even Otter the other day had a post that reflects the tendency of most conservatives. He titled his post regarding William F. Buckley assessment of Bush as not being a conservative as Buckley concluding Bush was liberal. That wan't Buckley's assertion. But in recent years most conservatives label anything not like them as "liberal." Most conservatives don't recognize a moderate. Most tend to see the world in black and white terms. To see shades of gray is to be wishy-washy and weak, and well, liberal. Most conservatives think that John McCain is a moderate and have even convinced many in the media. That is true only to the extent that moderate means, "not always doctrinaire." McCain is a conservative, he just isn't a consistenly reflexive one.

If I described someone to you as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, most on this board would instantly label him liberal. But that would accurately describe Barry Goldwater who laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan. On this board, GOLDWATER would be derided as a "lib."

My initial reply to David was actually a pretty gentle and calm challenge to this same thing. One individual does something and it's the "Libs." My reply to you, was hardly partisan. In fact, it simply showed balance:

I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing. This is an individual. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who would do alot of the same damn things.

252420[/snapback]

Sweet!!! Great post, TT.

This used to be a pretty good place to engage in somewhat meaningful and thoughtful discussion of politics. I wish it could be that way again.

[MDM4AU 330]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

252109[/snapback]

"Why do you care?" is a good question. Why do you care? David and I were having an exchange and you jump in like you're defending your sweetheart. Ironic, ain't it? In fact, you care so much that you are motivated to search through my posts to find that quote from June 11th. So what really got under your skin to motivate you so much, I mean other than the fact that the reply to David came from Texas Tiger?

It's funny how you read all the posts that get put on this board and this in the one you feel the need to call out as "anger filled"? I know you like to portray yourself as being a pretty objective guy, but that is obviously not the case. If you want "anger filled", mention Teddy Kennedy around David. There are all sorts of angry rants posted daily by so-called conservatives on this board. In fact, that is just about all Tigermike posts. Your hypocrisy is pretty amazing on this one, but your comments are at least usually smarter than this. I read this thread again, and have to ask what in my posts on this thread strikes you as so "anger filled" to warrant your comment? Especially in comparison to so many of the posts on this board?

But yes, I consider myself a moderate. When I am on liberal forums I tend to call out the liberals that reply reflexively instead of thoughtfully. On this forum, there aren't any extreme liberals that post regularly. On the other hand, almost all of the people who consider themselves conservative are extreme right wingers who are utterly predictable on almost every issue. The only two that stand out as consistenly thoughtful and reflective are Titan and Otter, and they don't waste too much of their time here anymore.

But even Otter the other day had a post that reflects the tendency of most conservatives. He titled his post regarding William F. Buckley assessment of Bush as not being a conservative as Buckley concluding Bush was liberal. That wan't Buckley's assertion. But in recent years most conservatives label anything not like them as "liberal." Most conservatives don't recognize a moderate. Most tend to see the world in black and white terms. To see shades of gray is to be wishy-washy and weak, and well, liberal. Most conservatives think that John McCain is a moderate and have even convinced many in the media. That is true only to the extent that moderate means, "not always doctrinaire." McCain is a conservative, he just isn't a consistenly reflexive one.

If I described someone to you as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, most on this board would instantly label him liberal. But that would accurately describe Barry Goldwater who laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan. On this board, GOLDWATER would be derided as a "lib."

My initial reply to David was actually a pretty gentle and calm challenge to this same thing. One individual does something and it's the "Libs." My reply to you, was hardly partisan. In fact, it simply showed balance:

I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing. This is an individual. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who would do alot of the same damn things.

252420[/snapback]

Hey, hey, hey...Why are you so defensive? All I asked was why you care? I didn't jump in to defend anyone. Both of my posts were very level headed and I guess I just got the wrong impression from your responses. Then you go into a novel about why, how and where you post. And now, just because I read your post in a different way than you intended it to read and I am not an objective guy. Interesting. If there are only two objective posters on here why do you try so hard to correct all the posters you do. One would think you would have tired of it by now.

I didn't have to search long for the remark about being you being a moderate. It struck me as odd when you posted it to me in June because I had the gall to call you a "lib" then. So for you to come to the rescue of all things lib in this post just sort of struck me as odd. Sort of like Tiger AL honking your bobo (thanks Galen) because... I guess, you put me in my place with your "Great Post, TT! You and I are having a discussion and would you call what he did jumping in to pump up his sweetheart? His is more defending of you than mine was of David.

The last thing I posted in that thread gave you exactly where I was coming from.

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

So nothing got under my skin, I wasn't defending David, I am sorry I hurt your feelings by "jumping in" to a discussion on a public forum between you and someone else (how rude of me), and I am sorry I showed a lack of objectivity by questioning you of all people (the personification of objectivity 24/7). Shame on me! I will let you and David get back to arguing and you and Al can get back to groping each other.

Have a good day Tex.

[TexasTiger 12,812]

David finds a guy in Arizona and decides he represents "the libs."

251654[/snapback]

Why do you care?

For the record, I consider myself a moderate.

If you're a moderate, why care what DKW says about liberals? If your truly a moderate and not a Lib, why all the hate for conservatives. You sure are a defensive lib....er...moderate. Even if you are really a Flaming, Bed-Wetting, Cause-Head, Activist, Far-Left, Nut-bag Liberal, why do you feel the need to defend? So what really got under your skin, other than it came from DKW?

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

252109[/snapback]

"Why do you care?" is a good question. Why do you care? David and I were having an exchange and you jump in like you're defending your sweetheart. Ironic, ain't it? In fact, you care so much that you are motivated to search through my posts to find that quote from June 11th. So what really got under your skin to motivate you so much, I mean other than the fact that the reply to David came from Texas Tiger?

It's funny how you read all the posts that get put on this board and this in the one you feel the need to call out as "anger filled"? I know you like to portray yourself as being a pretty objective guy, but that is obviously not the case. If you want "anger filled", mention Teddy Kennedy around David. There are all sorts of angry rants posted daily by so-called conservatives on this board. In fact, that is just about all Tigermike posts. Your hypocrisy is pretty amazing on this one, but your comments are at least usually smarter than this. I read this thread again, and have to ask what in my posts on this thread strikes you as so "anger filled" to warrant your comment? Especially in comparison to so many of the posts on this board?

But yes, I consider myself a moderate. When I am on liberal forums I tend to call out the liberals that reply reflexively instead of thoughtfully. On this forum, there aren't any extreme liberals that post regularly. On the other hand, almost all of the people who consider themselves conservative are extreme right wingers who are utterly predictable on almost every issue. The only two that stand out as consistenly thoughtful and reflective are Titan and Otter, and they don't waste too much of their time here anymore.

But even Otter the other day had a post that reflects the tendency of most conservatives. He titled his post regarding William F. Buckley assessment of Bush as not being a conservative as Buckley concluding Bush was liberal. That wan't Buckley's assertion. But in recent years most conservatives label anything not like them as "liberal." Most conservatives don't recognize a moderate. Most tend to see the world in black and white terms. To see shades of gray is to be wishy-washy and weak, and well, liberal. Most conservatives think that John McCain is a moderate and have even convinced many in the media. That is true only to the extent that moderate means, "not always doctrinaire." McCain is a conservative, he just isn't a consistenly reflexive one.

If I described someone to you as pro-choice and pro-gay rights, most on this board would instantly label him liberal. But that would accurately describe Barry Goldwater who laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan. On this board, GOLDWATER would be derided as a "lib."

My initial reply to David was actually a pretty gentle and calm challenge to this same thing. One individual does something and it's the "Libs." My reply to you, was hardly partisan. In fact, it simply showed balance:

I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing. This is an individual. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who would do alot of the same damn things.

252420[/snapback]

Hey, hey, hey...Why are you so defensive? All I asked was why you care? I didn't jump in to defend anyone. Both of my posts were very level headed and I guess I just got the wrong impression from your responses. Then you go into a novel about why, how and where you post. And now, just because I read your post in a different way than you intended it to read and I am not an objective guy. Interesting. If there are only two objective posters on here why do you try so hard to correct all the posters you do. One would think you would have tired of it by now.

I didn't have to search long for the remark about being you being a moderate. It struck me as odd when you posted it to me in June because I had the gall to call you a "lib" then. So for you to come to the rescue of all things lib in this post just sort of struck me as odd. Sort of like Tiger AL honking your bobo (thanks Galen) because... I guess, you put me in my place with your "Great Post, TT! You and I are having a discussion and would you call what he did jumping in to pump up his sweetheart? His is more defending of you than mine was of David.

The last thing I posted in that thread gave you exactly where I was coming from.

And I hope you don't think I am attacking you, your defense of this just seems odd and anger filled.

So nothing got under my skin, I wasn't defending David, I am sorry I hurt your feelings by "jumping in" to a discussion on a public forum between you and someone else (how rude of me), and I am sorry I showed a lack of objectivity by questioning you of all people (the personification of objectivity 24/7). Shame on me! I will let you and David get back to arguing and you and Al can get back to groping each other.

Have a good day Tex.

252473[/snapback]

So for you to come to the rescue of all things lib in this post just sort of struck me as odd.

This interpretation/characterization by you shows

exactly where [you were] coming from. 

far more than your disingenuous disclaimer at the end of the previous post. Keep deluding yourself if that's what you need.

I never objected to your "jumping in" and, in fact, answered you each time. I was just pointing out how, in your words, your reply was "odd." For some reason, you think it is okay to question my reply on a public forum but not yours. Go figure.

Actually it is less "defensive" for a poster to comment on their agreement on another posters post than to ask a poster why they replied the way they did to someone and then characterize it as "odd" and "anger filled". MDM4AU logic, I guess.

On this thread you originally posed a question to me, said you seriously wanted to hear my opinion, and I responded. I posed a question to you and you ignored it and derided my answer to you as a "novel"

Question all you want. But you certainly don't like be questioned in return, do you?

One would think you would have tired of it by now. 

Well, that's true.

[Tiger Al 0]

No, MDM, it wasn't a defense of TT. I was simply agreeing with what he said because it was something that needed to be said. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MDM4AU 330]

So for you to come to the rescue of all things lib in this post just sort of struck me as odd.

This interpretation/characterization by you shows

exactly where [you were] coming from. 

far more than your disingenuous disclaimer at the end of the previous post. Keep deluding yourself if that's what you need.

You defended all libs like you were offended but you claim to be a moderate. I wasn't attacking you. If you felt that I was, there is nothing I can say to change your mind, disingenuous or not.

I never objected to your "jumping in" and, in fact, answered you each time. I was just pointing out how, in your words, your reply was "odd." For some reason, you think it is okay to question my reply on a public forum but not yours. Go figure.

You took a shot at me for " jump(ing) in like (I was)defending (my) sweetheart." Yeah, you had no problem there did you? I questioned why you care so much. Never once had a problem with you questioning me. That's where you sir are deluded. As for why I care, I don't, really...I simply asked why you did. Simple curiosity. That's all. As "odd" as that concept may seem to you...But why am I explaining it to you? In all your objectivity you will still never get it.

Actually it is less "defensive" for a poster to comment on their agreement on another posters post than to ask a poster why they replied the way they did to someone and then characterize it as "odd" and "anger filled". MDM4AU logic, I guess.

Sue me! It came across as odd for a self proclaimed moderate to defend libs in a way that seemed angry to me. If you weren't, oh-well. I misinterpreted it. Isn't the first or last time that will happen with me or 99% of the rest of the members on this board. I include you in the 1% because you never misunderstand a posters intentions do you?

On this thread you originally posed a question to me, said you seriously wanted to hear my opinion, and I responded. I posed a question to you and you ignored it and derided my answer to you as a "novel"

I have now answered your question. If simple curiosity doesn't suffice, there is no use in going any further with this part of the discussion.

Question all you want. But you certainly don't like be questioned in return, do you?

Fire away any question you would like, buddy. Won't bother me in the least.

One would think you would have tired of it by now. 

Well, that's true.

Then why...oh, nevermind...

252501[/snapback]