Barney Frank should know better than engage in verbal jousts with men far, far his equal. AssJustice Scalia is positively the best justice we’ve EVER had on the bench… and he’s not a shabby philosopher pundit, either… even if the AynRanders (which sounds like Ann Landers) take issue with him from time to time.
Scalia should use a Churchill quip when addressing Bawney Fwank: “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
Regards,
Peter H.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Unfortunate that gay heterophobia isn’t limited to Barney Frank.
ILoveCapitalismsays
MM, interesting piece that you linked… did you notice how it fulminates against social (non-libertarian) conservatives? It says stuff like:
If you want to know whether conservatives deserve to be considered defenders of liberty… [i.e. they don’t]…
The same Justice Scalia, with other conservatives, earlier this week assailed the affirmative-action decision as condoning illegitimate social engineering. Their view was correct, but their motives were hypocritical…
Positions I reject, by the way. Although I am a libertarian conservative, I respect and defend many social conservatives. But I digress. MM… don’t you also hate conservatives, just like the Ayn Rand folks? After all, we have pretty recent gems like these from you:
angry, disgruntled, piss-in-their-boots soc-cons who sat out the election…
couldn’t be convinced to vote for McCain even when Nancy Reagan invoked the spirit of her husband, Ronald the Conservative Crusader, on John McCain’s behalf…
…the spiteful spectrum… disgruntled white soc-cons… with a spiteful conviction usually saved for religious conversions…
…the disloyal actions of 4.1m soc-con helped to elect Obama…
I’m personally hoping that… Obama does for the Democrats & liberals what Reagan did for GOPers and conservatives… remake the political landscape for a generation or more. [i.e., against conservatives]
So MM, shouldn’t you be in agreement with the piece you quoted? Anyway it makes me wonder.
Michigan-Mattsays
ILC, I’m wondering if you’re actually asking a question that has some substance behind it –in lieu of your very predictable schtick of rebutting the rebuttal of the restatements and endlessly trying to badger people off GP’s blog or bait others for your own attention and amusement.
Let’s say I’m not actually wondering… I think old dawgs rarely change spots, bite, bark or tricks and that adage easily and rightly applies to you.
But let’s say you ARE now sincere in the question, I’d offer that you first need to look at your confusion over terms and what is a social conservative and what is a conservative. It’s a portion (4.1m) of the former that Rove & Barone & Richard Nadler & others contend stayed home on Election 08 Day and turned over the govt to the farLeft and Obama… those are the target of my scorn. Soc-cons, you know, who stayed home on election day in a snit of spiteful arrogance that was disloyal to a Party that carried their fetid water pail for far, far too long. Not conservatives, ILC –as you try to misdirect in your comment above.
Second, I’d suggest your assumptions are misplaced since, recently, I scored 74/400 on the “How Progressive (Aren’t) We” quiz that Bruce proctored up on the blog last week (?). So I guess that would make me, according to you, a self-loathing conservative? Of course, that’s about as nutts as the silly and unsubstantiated charge that gayLefties make about self-loathing gay GOPers… but politics does make strange bedfellows and I guess you could be akin the gayLefties on this one.
Hmmm, maybe I was wrong; maybe it does make me wonder.
Of course, that’s IF you were really asking a question and not just trying to goad, bait and badger.
One thing I do wonder though… what is it with this self-appointed botheration you have with researching anyone who dare contradicts your perch-like position on an issue, culling out at random quotes from them or quotes from other websites and then using the research like some God-given prosecutorial powerTripper from the blogosphere? Now that, I wonder, shows good mental health?
I think not.
ILoveCapitalismsays
MM, I asked a legitimate question about something you brought up. In response, you bring out the personal attacks, complete with frothing claims about others’ mental health (irony, anyone? 😉 ), thus taking the thread off-topic.
But, to stick with answering those of your points that were a bit topical:
Soc-cons, you know, who stayed home on election day in a snit of spiteful arrogance that was disloyal to a Party that carried their fetid water pail for far, far too long. Not conservatives, ILC –as you try to misdirect in your comment above.
First, I didn’t misdirect anything. I distinguished between “libertarian conservatives” and “social conservatives” as two sub-types of the broader category, “conservative”, and without necessarily excluding additional subtypes.
But now to your point: You confirm my point. You don’t like or respect the social conservatives. Fine. I demonstrated that correctly. And that particular set of folks over at aynrand.org (by no means the only Ayn Rand people) feel just as you do. When they use the term “conservative”, in their special lingo, they have in mind anything associated with what you would call “social conservatives”. So you’re on the same page with them in your dislikes, right?
recently, I scored 74/400 on the “How Progressive (Aren’t) We†quiz that Bruce proctored up… So I guess that would make me, according to you, a self-loathing conservative?
Not in the least; on several levels. But it must be an issue for you, since you needed to bring it up on your own. Now I’m wondering about that. This blog does bill itself as “The Internet home of the gay conservative”. I don’t know, perhaps you realized that conservative-bashing, and/or positioning yourself as the GOP “moderate” that will succeed without those nasty “conservatives” whom you have hoped Obama to set back for “a generation or more”, isn’t the best way to go on this blog. Who knows, maybe we are all conservatives now 😉
ILoveCapitalismsays
P.S. Re-reading my comment at #5, MM, I think I see how you could have misread it. I had said this:
MM… don’t you also hate conservatives, just like the Ayn Rand folks?
Using it in the same sense that your linked article had used it, i.e., as social conservatives… and neglecting to carefully state the “social”. But… wait a tick… you yourself had said this (which I quoted):
I’m personally hoping that… Obama does for the Democrats & liberals what Reagan did for GOPers and conservatives… remake the political landscape for a generation or more.
Also neglecting to carefully qualify the conservatives you want Obama to set back “for a generation or more” as “social” conservatives.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Aargh, sorry, bad edit. “Using it in the same sense that your linked *people* would generally use it…”
Again in fairness, the article you linked is very short and they do not assert or explain their special dislike of religious/social conservatism. The latter is something I know from my knowledge of different factions and styles in Ayn Rand’s movement. If you weren’t familiar with the latter, you might not know of that faction’s special dislike of religion and its use of the word “conservative” in rough correspondence with what we would call religious or social conservatives.
ILoveCapitalismsays
(#7, 8, 9 continued) I guess you and they would not see eye-to-eye on Scalia. They classify Scalia as the kind of religious/social conservative they hate. You praise Scalia, while pouring scorn on those social conservatives who found McCain lackluster. So, do you mentally separate Scalia from social conservatism? Now I’m wondering how that’s done. Scalia is a darling of the social conservative movement.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Alright, so to try to summarize my question:
– You like Scalia.
– You hate soc-cons (as has been shown).
– You linked to an Ayn Rand faction/article that hates soc-cons, *just like you*… except that they include Scalia as a soc-con, and (slightly in their defense) arguably Scalia may indeed be a soc-con.
– So… why? What was your point, again?
Michigan-Mattsays
ILC, the balance of all your posting of rebutts to rebuttals… they key is I didn’t buy you were sincere in: “MM, I asked a legitimate question about something you brought up.”
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bark, same bite. You are incapable of change or honest dialogue.
Thanks for proving it once again… I stand with all the others who have had to endure your nonsense and tiresome rebuttals to rebutts whilst standing on that little soapbox addressing your imaginary adoring fans.
Go on without me… when you have the final say and are ignored, you seem to quiet down until you can bait and badger the next target to land in your web. Spin the web; you have the final say.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Long story short: I ask a question, you can only insult.
Michigan-Mattsays
Long story short, you aren’t interested in honest dialogue ILC. You have had the final say but you couldn’t stop the rebutting the rebuttal nonsense for 650+ words. If you did, some people here might take you seriously for a moment.
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Long story short: I ask a question, you can only insult.
And, Michigan-Matt, it seems like only yesterday, you were saying:
Go on without me… you have the final say.
I guess not.
heliotropesays
Is it my imagination, but do you think that as the day wears on the meds wear off?
ILoveCapitalismsays
I don’t know if I should say ‘yes’ in public.
Michigan-Mattsays
Long story short, you aren’t interested in honest dialogue ILC. You have had the final say but you couldn’t stop the rebutting the rebuttal nonsense for 650+ words. If you did, some people here might take you seriously for a moment.
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.
Michigan-Mattsays
helio, his meds wore off about the time he switched pj’s and entered Day 1,456 in Mom’s basement. But I appreciate your concern for ILC.
sacr/off.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Brava! MM, your insults are an ornament to this blog! A good effort. Well, decidedly that! An excellent effort! You have shown us something… quite new! It’s very good!
Of course, now and then… just now and then… it seemed a touch… well, I mean occasionally, it seems to have… oh, how shall one say? ….How shall one say, Direktor? “Too many notes.” Exactly. Very well put. You hit too many notes, MM. My dear fellow. There are, in fact, only so many notes the ear can hear in a course of pathetic insults. I think I’m right in saying that, aren’t I heliotrope? “Yes… Yes… on the whole…”
So, my dear MM, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious! It’s quality work! And, there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few, and it’ll be perfect 😉
The Livewiresays
Not that I want to break in on this love fest between you two…
But everyone does know that Scrappleface is a parody site, yes?
“News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.”
That said, I’ve always loved Justice Scalia’s wit, and this would be worthy him.
Michigan-Mattsays
ILC, I think your feigned outrage has worn thin around these parts from all the attacks on people like American Elephant, Ignatius, Attmay, me and many, many others.
I get that you don’t like being held to account or your opinions criticized. It’s a thin-skinned man who runs to the webmasters and whines about unfair treatment and then gleefully plays games instead of debating or discussing the issues. Others here have noticed the game you play of goading and baiting people, ramping up the spite in all that endless rebuttal nonsense that is your hallmark and then gleefully proclaiming any response to your gamesmanship is “an insult, more invectives, keep them coming, we know you can do better”. You’ve done it to me without cause. You’ve done it to American Elephant without cause. You’ve done it to Ignatius without cause. You’ve done it to… well, the litany is as long as the one I daily pray with all the Saints.
I wish you could engage in honest dialogue and spare all these fantasy moments of you jumping up on your soapbox, addressing an imaginary fan base of adoring fans in the echo chamber and then spreading false incriminations all about the landscape.
Of course, I also wish Obama hadn’t been elected. So I guess I’m guilty of wishful thinking a bit too often for the gritty realist commenters here who only want to preserve the right to bitch, complain and moan… or goad, prod and bait.
Come on ILC, join me in embracing Dan & Bruce’s call for a more civil tone. Please?
ILoveCapitalismsays
Come on ILC, join me in embracing Dan & Bruce’s call for a more civil tone. Please?
MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.
Even in brushing aside your insults and incivility, I went for a ‘light touch’, adapting a humorous passage from the PG-rated movie, _Amadeus_. But now let’s summarize / fully expose your tone. From your comments in this thread, to me:
…I think old dawgs rarely change spots, bite, bark or tricks and that adage easily and rightly applies to you…
…Soc-cons, you know, who stayed home on election day in a snit of spiteful arrogance that was disloyal to a Party that carried their fetid water pail for far, far too long….
…So I guess that would make me, according to you, a self-loathing conservative? [ed: a total invention on MM’s part]…
…Of course, that’s IF you were really asking a question and not just trying to goad, bait and badger…
…this self-appointed botheration you have with researching anyone who dare contradicts your perch-like position… and then using the research like some God-given prosecutorial powerTripper from the blogosphere? Now that, I wonder, shows good mental health? I think not.
…Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bark, same bite. You are incapable of change or honest dialogue….
…Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now….
…helio, his meds wore off about the time he switched pj’s and entered Day 1,456 in Mom’s basement…
I believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal (3 dogs + 1 badger), one paranoid pure invention on your part, an attack on my supposed age, an insult in the form of a deliberate misstatement of my living situation, and 2 insults in the form of deliberate misstatement of my mental health.
How PRODIGIOUSLY civil! 🙂
ILoveCapitalismsays
Now… As for actually going forward from here, if you (MM) promise that YOU will start adopting a civil tone… I believe we left off with my asking you the following about your comment #2:
– You like Scalia.
– You hate soc-cons (as has been shown).
– You linked to an Ayn Rand faction/article that hates soc-cons, *just like you do*… except that they include Scalia as a soc-con, and (slightly in their defense) arguably Scalia may indeed be a soc-con.
– So… why? What was your point [in that], again? [It’s not clear at all.]
I’ll wait.
Michigan-Mattsays
ILC, I think you’re becoming literally incapable of seeing fault when it is in your court. Could it be a pathology? I’m sure many of the commenters here who have had to endure your battling and needling and goading and baiting would agree.
You plead: “MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.” But then, ILC you can’t fathom that #’s 17 and 20 nail the coffin shut on that proof. You defeat your own shallow claim.
You plead: “…believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal” -no, again ILC it’s a rhetorical device to underscore that you keep doing the same thing over and over without effect or a positive constructive gain. You see that as insult; I think V gets to classify his as zingers. Saying you’re an old dawg that can’t learn new tricks is a metaphor. A rhetorical device. You try to project it as an insult? Lame, dude. Lame.
If your thin-skin is so sensitive, I suggest you take some time to reflect SILENTLY about your role in making this blog uncivil and boorish and working to drive people who disagree with you from its confines.
SILENTLY would be the key. Sort of like making a good act of contrition after exiting the confessional… it’s your act of contrition for you to learn from… like the adamant willow bending to the wind. I know you can change and adopt Dan’s and Bruce’s call for a return to civility here.
I know you can.
Michigan-Mattsays
Finally, ILC you bait with this “I’ll wait” at #24.
I’ll wait for you to demonstrate some adherence to Dan’s and Bruce’s fair request for commenters here to return to a civil tone.
Like in earlier threads, the proof is in your hands to make, ILC… not mine.
Attmaysays
[This commenter has now been banned for continued violation of community terms of conduct.]
ILoveCapitalismsays
Still waiting for some kind of rational, not-frothing-at-the-mouth response to my legitimate question, MM.
Zing!
Barney Frank should know better than engage in verbal jousts with men far, far his equal. AssJustice Scalia is positively the best justice we’ve EVER had on the bench… and he’s not a shabby philosopher pundit, either… even if the AynRanders (which sounds like Ann Landers) take issue with him from time to time.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7528&news_iv_ctrl=1223
Scalia should use a Churchill quip when addressing Bawney Fwank: “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Unfortunate that gay heterophobia isn’t limited to Barney Frank.
MM, interesting piece that you linked… did you notice how it fulminates against social (non-libertarian) conservatives? It says stuff like:
Positions I reject, by the way. Although I am a libertarian conservative, I respect and defend many social conservatives. But I digress. MM… don’t you also hate conservatives, just like the Ayn Rand folks? After all, we have pretty recent gems like these from you:
So MM, shouldn’t you be in agreement with the piece you quoted? Anyway it makes me wonder.
ILC, I’m wondering if you’re actually asking a question that has some substance behind it –in lieu of your very predictable schtick of rebutting the rebuttal of the restatements and endlessly trying to badger people off GP’s blog or bait others for your own attention and amusement.
Let’s say I’m not actually wondering… I think old dawgs rarely change spots, bite, bark or tricks and that adage easily and rightly applies to you.
But let’s say you ARE now sincere in the question, I’d offer that you first need to look at your confusion over terms and what is a social conservative and what is a conservative. It’s a portion (4.1m) of the former that Rove & Barone & Richard Nadler & others contend stayed home on Election 08 Day and turned over the govt to the farLeft and Obama… those are the target of my scorn. Soc-cons, you know, who stayed home on election day in a snit of spiteful arrogance that was disloyal to a Party that carried their fetid water pail for far, far too long. Not conservatives, ILC –as you try to misdirect in your comment above.
Second, I’d suggest your assumptions are misplaced since, recently, I scored 74/400 on the “How Progressive (Aren’t) We” quiz that Bruce proctored up on the blog last week (?). So I guess that would make me, according to you, a self-loathing conservative? Of course, that’s about as nutts as the silly and unsubstantiated charge that gayLefties make about self-loathing gay GOPers… but politics does make strange bedfellows and I guess you could be akin the gayLefties on this one.
Hmmm, maybe I was wrong; maybe it does make me wonder.
Of course, that’s IF you were really asking a question and not just trying to goad, bait and badger.
One thing I do wonder though… what is it with this self-appointed botheration you have with researching anyone who dare contradicts your perch-like position on an issue, culling out at random quotes from them or quotes from other websites and then using the research like some God-given prosecutorial powerTripper from the blogosphere? Now that, I wonder, shows good mental health?
I think not.
MM, I asked a legitimate question about something you brought up. In response, you bring out the personal attacks, complete with frothing claims about others’ mental health (irony, anyone? 😉 ), thus taking the thread off-topic.
But, to stick with answering those of your points that were a bit topical:
First, I didn’t misdirect anything. I distinguished between “libertarian conservatives” and “social conservatives” as two sub-types of the broader category, “conservative”, and without necessarily excluding additional subtypes.
But now to your point: You confirm my point. You don’t like or respect the social conservatives. Fine. I demonstrated that correctly. And that particular set of folks over at aynrand.org (by no means the only Ayn Rand people) feel just as you do. When they use the term “conservative”, in their special lingo, they have in mind anything associated with what you would call “social conservatives”. So you’re on the same page with them in your dislikes, right?
Not in the least; on several levels. But it must be an issue for you, since you needed to bring it up on your own. Now I’m wondering about that. This blog does bill itself as “The Internet home of the gay conservative”. I don’t know, perhaps you realized that conservative-bashing, and/or positioning yourself as the GOP “moderate” that will succeed without those nasty “conservatives” whom you have hoped Obama to set back for “a generation or more”, isn’t the best way to go on this blog. Who knows, maybe we are all conservatives now 😉
P.S. Re-reading my comment at #5, MM, I think I see how you could have misread it. I had said this:
Using it in the same sense that your linked article had used it, i.e., as social conservatives… and neglecting to carefully state the “social”. But… wait a tick… you yourself had said this (which I quoted):
Also neglecting to carefully qualify the conservatives you want Obama to set back “for a generation or more” as “social” conservatives.
Aargh, sorry, bad edit. “Using it in the same sense that your linked *people* would generally use it…”
Again in fairness, the article you linked is very short and they do not assert or explain their special dislike of religious/social conservatism. The latter is something I know from my knowledge of different factions and styles in Ayn Rand’s movement. If you weren’t familiar with the latter, you might not know of that faction’s special dislike of religion and its use of the word “conservative” in rough correspondence with what we would call religious or social conservatives.
(#7, 8, 9 continued) I guess you and they would not see eye-to-eye on Scalia. They classify Scalia as the kind of religious/social conservative they hate. You praise Scalia, while pouring scorn on those social conservatives who found McCain lackluster. So, do you mentally separate Scalia from social conservatism? Now I’m wondering how that’s done. Scalia is a darling of the social conservative movement.
Alright, so to try to summarize my question:
– You like Scalia.
– You hate soc-cons (as has been shown).
– You linked to an Ayn Rand faction/article that hates soc-cons, *just like you*… except that they include Scalia as a soc-con, and (slightly in their defense) arguably Scalia may indeed be a soc-con.
– So… why? What was your point, again?
ILC, the balance of all your posting of rebutts to rebuttals… they key is I didn’t buy you were sincere in: “MM, I asked a legitimate question about something you brought up.”
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bark, same bite. You are incapable of change or honest dialogue.
Thanks for proving it once again… I stand with all the others who have had to endure your nonsense and tiresome rebuttals to rebutts whilst standing on that little soapbox addressing your imaginary adoring fans.
Go on without me… when you have the final say and are ignored, you seem to quiet down until you can bait and badger the next target to land in your web. Spin the web; you have the final say.
Long story short: I ask a question, you can only insult.
Long story short, you aren’t interested in honest dialogue ILC. You have had the final say but you couldn’t stop the rebutting the rebuttal nonsense for 650+ words. If you did, some people here might take you seriously for a moment.
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.
Long story short: I ask a question, you can only insult.
And, Michigan-Matt, it seems like only yesterday, you were saying:
I guess not.
Is it my imagination, but do you think that as the day wears on the meds wear off?
I don’t know if I should say ‘yes’ in public.
Long story short, you aren’t interested in honest dialogue ILC. You have had the final say but you couldn’t stop the rebutting the rebuttal nonsense for 650+ words. If you did, some people here might take you seriously for a moment.
Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.
helio, his meds wore off about the time he switched pj’s and entered Day 1,456 in Mom’s basement. But I appreciate your concern for ILC.
sacr/off.
Brava! MM, your insults are an ornament to this blog! A good effort. Well, decidedly that! An excellent effort! You have shown us something… quite new! It’s very good!
Of course, now and then… just now and then… it seemed a touch… well, I mean occasionally, it seems to have… oh, how shall one say? ….How shall one say, Direktor? “Too many notes.” Exactly. Very well put. You hit too many notes, MM. My dear fellow. There are, in fact, only so many notes the ear can hear in a course of pathetic insults. I think I’m right in saying that, aren’t I heliotrope? “Yes… Yes… on the whole…”
So, my dear MM, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious! It’s quality work! And, there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few, and it’ll be perfect 😉
Not that I want to break in on this love fest between you two…
But everyone does know that Scrappleface is a parody site, yes?
“News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.”
That said, I’ve always loved Justice Scalia’s wit, and this would be worthy him.
ILC, I think your feigned outrage has worn thin around these parts from all the attacks on people like American Elephant, Ignatius, Attmay, me and many, many others.
I get that you don’t like being held to account or your opinions criticized. It’s a thin-skinned man who runs to the webmasters and whines about unfair treatment and then gleefully plays games instead of debating or discussing the issues. Others here have noticed the game you play of goading and baiting people, ramping up the spite in all that endless rebuttal nonsense that is your hallmark and then gleefully proclaiming any response to your gamesmanship is “an insult, more invectives, keep them coming, we know you can do better”. You’ve done it to me without cause. You’ve done it to American Elephant without cause. You’ve done it to Ignatius without cause. You’ve done it to… well, the litany is as long as the one I daily pray with all the Saints.
I wish you could engage in honest dialogue and spare all these fantasy moments of you jumping up on your soapbox, addressing an imaginary fan base of adoring fans in the echo chamber and then spreading false incriminations all about the landscape.
Of course, I also wish Obama hadn’t been elected. So I guess I’m guilty of wishful thinking a bit too often for the gritty realist commenters here who only want to preserve the right to bitch, complain and moan… or goad, prod and bait.
Come on ILC, join me in embracing Dan & Bruce’s call for a more civil tone. Please?
MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.
Even in brushing aside your insults and incivility, I went for a ‘light touch’, adapting a humorous passage from the PG-rated movie, _Amadeus_. But now let’s summarize / fully expose your tone. From your comments in this thread, to me:
I believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal (3 dogs + 1 badger), one paranoid pure invention on your part, an attack on my supposed age, an insult in the form of a deliberate misstatement of my living situation, and 2 insults in the form of deliberate misstatement of my mental health.
How PRODIGIOUSLY civil! 🙂
Now… As for actually going forward from here, if you (MM) promise that YOU will start adopting a civil tone… I believe we left off with my asking you the following about your comment #2:
I’ll wait.
ILC, I think you’re becoming literally incapable of seeing fault when it is in your court. Could it be a pathology? I’m sure many of the commenters here who have had to endure your battling and needling and goading and baiting would agree.
You plead: “MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.” But then, ILC you can’t fathom that #’s 17 and 20 nail the coffin shut on that proof. You defeat your own shallow claim.
You plead: “…believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal” -no, again ILC it’s a rhetorical device to underscore that you keep doing the same thing over and over without effect or a positive constructive gain. You see that as insult; I think V gets to classify his as zingers. Saying you’re an old dawg that can’t learn new tricks is a metaphor. A rhetorical device. You try to project it as an insult? Lame, dude. Lame.
If your thin-skin is so sensitive, I suggest you take some time to reflect SILENTLY about your role in making this blog uncivil and boorish and working to drive people who disagree with you from its confines.
SILENTLY would be the key. Sort of like making a good act of contrition after exiting the confessional… it’s your act of contrition for you to learn from… like the adamant willow bending to the wind. I know you can change and adopt Dan’s and Bruce’s call for a return to civility here.
I know you can.
Finally, ILC you bait with this “I’ll wait” at #24.
I’ll wait for you to demonstrate some adherence to Dan’s and Bruce’s fair request for commenters here to return to a civil tone.
Like in earlier threads, the proof is in your hands to make, ILC… not mine.
[This commenter has now been banned for continued violation of community terms of conduct.]
Still waiting for some kind of rational, not-frothing-at-the-mouth response to my legitimate question, MM.