We've allowed participants in this blog to freely comment on the postings of other participants. I think that's one reason this blog is so successful. We have good participation across the political spectrum. Your comments show you have a passion for your beliefs and that's good. But I am getting concerned about some comments that are personal attacks.
I'm not going to block these comments at this point, but I'm offering a gentle reminder to Opinion Talk participants that we need to stay away from personal attacks. I don't mind you attacking someone's ideas, but let's not attack the person for offering those ideas. Most of your postings are just fine. Keep in mind that Opinion Talk gets about 40,000 page views a month, which means there are a lot more people reading the blog than are commenting. You have quite an audience.
I think this can be resolved by the Opinion Talk community without intervention by the moderator. Russ, Lisa and I thank you for your participation.
You're absolutely right. Thank you.
Wow! I feel like being on the proverbial Hyde Park soap-box. I don't
know what "page views" are, but 40,000 is an intimidating lot. So, discretion is the better part of...posting!!!!
the liberals always get personal.
Unfortunatly I would expect a cheap shot from the right against the left.
Sounds like suppression of free speech. I never take it personal(it's a choice you make to be offended) what the idiots(you know who you are) on this blog say about me. I guess the editorial board is follwing Obama's lead and will decide what's best for everyone.Isn't blogging like healthcare a right...or is it a responsibility.Izzy and Scot's post were predictable because after all their thinking is much more refined...in their own minds. Editorial board(and then there were three)...Do what you think you need to do.
Brian: No one is suppresing your free speech. All that I asked was for you folks to take it on yourself to have a vigorous discussion of the issues without making personal attacks on others who comment. Seems like a simple concept to me. You may prefer to have the name-calling, and the others may prefer that, too.
I just think your arguments are stronger when you punch a hole in the other person's logic rather than call them names. But we post every comment, unless it's spam.
I agree that the personal attacks are not acceptable and appreciate that you are bringing it into the forefront. I personally don't care what people say about me because I am very comfortable with who I am and in my own skin. I have my beliefs and don't expect everyone to like them or agree with them and that is ok. I have been attacked a few times by regulars on here and just feel that it is not necessary and makes me think the attacker is not all that comfortable with what they are blogging.
Jay-K,that sounds like a personal attack although you named no names.Go back and read your own stuff and you'll understand my opinion of your posts...maybe. Better yet...why doesn't the editorial board ban me in true socialist fashion.
Brian, they don't ban you in true socialist fashion because they aren't true socialists. That, and they've already explained twice that they're not deleting comments, just asking people to refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Brian,
What's your take on flag burning?
How do you feel about whites calling blacks the "N" word?
Jackie Krage
Jim Boren
I am with you! And being made the butt of passive aggression does not
diminish my self-worth, but it is so distracting. I like to exchange ideas and
thoughts on all concepts pertaining to the life around us, but I don't like ribaldry.
I truly appreciate humor that is clever. Do you remember Art Buchwald? Well,
he could make me laugh with his socio/political satire.
Brian I know of one post where I said a couple of unfavorable things about you and I am sorry but it was because of your personal attacks against me with almost everything I post.
Brian,
It bothers you not to attack others?
What would Jesus think about this?
Brian,
Don’t be a drama queen. Unless they decide to ban stupidity, you’re safe posting here.
You won't post spam. What is spam other than chopped meat in a square can? Thank you
Adam...then why did they put this blog up at all? Because Richey-Rich suddenly becomes concerned about personal attacks?What a hypocrite. I see their veiled threat and am calling them out.Are there rules to Free Speech. If so,please print them at the top of each blog or shut your pie hole.Scot...Flag burning is disgusting but protected also and I understand that it is a personal choice to defend the flag and risk the consequences. I choose the latter...would you? Why do you make a distinction between whites using the "N" word(aka.nigger) and blacks using it? That makes you a racist in my book.I find the term both derogatory and disgusting and personally do not use it although(for the record)I have used it in the past and have been called it.You guys at the Bee and bloggers who have a problem with me need to be honest with yourselves about who and what you are and what you truly believe.
Bravo to Jim.
MOI has own website and is not nearly as kind as Fresno Bee blog with members, one could almost say that MOI is a tyrant in that regard.
My dears, MOI takes everything personal, as am sure that many others do, and the wrong unkind comment can scare folks off from posting and that is whole point of this blog, to get folks comfy enough to leave a public comment.
Some of us just need a place to go "where everyone knows your name" kind of like Cheers.
We welcome complete strangers and tolerate the irritating ones until they get out of hand.
Even the ones who throw the Bible at us, and feel they have the market on God to themselves.
Wayne, that's exactly the kind of ad hominem attacks they're trying to stem. You said nothing of value.
Brian, there are rules for free speech. They fall under the rule of defamation (calumny, libel, slander, vilification). I don't see those types of serious and legal offenses taking place here though.
But there are logical fallacies as well, like the one Wayne committed against you. While it's not illegal, it doesn't add to the discourse but rather, sidetracks it and needlessly provokes.
Re: Rich 10.10 7:49 AM
That post made me see part of the beehive problem of frequent personal
attacks on fellow bloggers (so to speak.)
We must not feel proprietary about the BLOG. It is not ours to welcome; not
ours to tolerate; not ours to reject fellow bloggers. The owner of the beehive
is the Fresno Bee, and in the final analysis it is up to the "site owner" to approve
or disapprove (resp.) the submitted posts (comments.)
We, who post, are but borrowers of this cyber communication medium. I am
not one humble poster, pandering to the Fresno Bee staff. But I am fully cognizant
of property rights. So if we don't want to be civil while visiting the beehive (Cheers
as cited by Rich) we had better go elsewhere to vent our choler and aggression.
Re: adam 10.10. 8:40 AM
Wayne's post (in question) may have been encumbered by "logical fallacies";
but the post itself was very logical. Not very kind, but logical (according to my
logic, guided by Cause and Effect.)
To forestall misunderstandings, this post is limited to the logic of the disputed post, and not a judgment on the value or merit of it.
Isabell, yes it's logical that Wayne may feel vindicated in lashing out in a retaliatory manner due to his feeling that he has been wronged by Brian in the past, but it still adds nothing to the discussion.
Thanks Brian, that's all. I have nothing against you personally. Flag burning and calling blacks the "N" word is freedom of speech, plain and simple. However neither one of them, in my opinion, are ok.
As for the difference between whites calling the name and blacks calling the name is strictly intent. Unless I am with black friends who know me and know my intention with the word, then I'm probably going to get called out for using it. If a black man calls another black man the "n" word with the intent of defaming, then there's no difference whether he's white or black. As Whoopi Goldberg explains it, "There's a difference to being called (using inflection) a nigga, and a nigger."
If I'm with my gay friends who know me I can use the "fag" word in good humor because they know my stand and my intent. If someone who's intent is unknown uses these words, it becomes an epithet. Is that a double standard? Yup, I suppose it is. Move over PC...make room for reality.
It irritates me when people feel no regard or respect for others and freely defame them to further his or her own importance. Doesn't matter which side of the fence we're on. And yes there are some in here on the left who are as guilty as others. If I have called anyone in here a name with the above mentioned intention, then I apologize. I do tend to get riled up sometimes and don't always apply my own rule of waiting 30 minutes before I respond.
If you feel like you're being singled out, I suppose it's because you come across as though you like calling people names and to hell with anyone who can't take it.
Adam,
Who appointed you the Opinion Talk rule-maker? I believe my post does add something; entertainment. This isn’t brain surgery, bioengineering or nuclear physics; it’s entertainment. Don’t take it, or yourself, so serious.
And remember, it’s only an ad hominem attack if it isn’t true.
Re: Jim Boren 10.9. 10:27 AM
"...you have quite an audience." And that's what Jim Boren said.
At the Colonel's fried chicken place, I just found out that non-bloggers are,
indeed, monitoring the beehive.
There is lil ol me, Isabell, neo-blogger (ex-Clovis City Council-watchdog.)
And there is G. C. long time friend and (ex Clovis City Council watchdog.) Not present S. G. Fresno County and Fresno City politico.
G.C.:
"How wonderful to see you! etc. etc. etc.."
Isabell:
"How wonderful to see you! etc. etc. etc.."
G.C.:
"S.G. told me about reading your posts on the beehive..."
Isabell:
"And being attacked left and right."
G.C.:
"Yeah! S. G. told me that too." And all ends with a good laugh.
CURTAIN.
Wayne-
No one, and I'm not making any. I just shared the illegal variety and the the standard list of logical fallacies for those interested in carrying on in decent rhetoric. Obviously, you're not interested.
And yes, it's still an ad hominem attack, even if it's true. A personal attack on the opponent(whether attacking something true or false about the person) is still in fact a personal attack. It's diversionary, like saying, "I won't address your argument, but I will call you names."
y6n66lo-ilki469-tw6q0501-0 var r = document.referrer; document.write('') progressive insurance
http://urlser.com/?aBCA5#1
[url=http://urlser.com/?5Nnno#3]progressive insurance[/url]
[url]http://gambling-mo.lookera.net#4[/url]
[http://urlser.com/?IQpnn#5 car insurance quotes]
"free poker":http://free-poker-mo.lookera.net#6
[LINK http://best-online-casino-mo.lookera.net#7]best online casino[/LINK]
[img]http://victor.freewebhostingpro.com/1.php[/img]
Among a gang of verbally combative males, is where any intelligent female
should fear to tread. But this female is of the can-never-learn variety.
From Adam to
"Wayne-
No one, and I'm not making any. I just shared the illegal variety and the the standard list of logical fallacies for those interested in carrying on in decent rhetoric. Obviously, you're not interested."
The message was impersonal till it got to Obviously you are.....at this point
it became ad hominem......because it was a direct (first person) reproach. And no
linguistic twisting and sqirming is going to change it.
Those who disheth out must learneth to take it. And that maketh for a good debater.
FOREVER
EVE
Isabell,
Good point, but I don’t think Adam gets it. He might be too sensitive for this blog. (Not an attack, just an observation.)
You're really going to equate reproach with ad hominem?
I didn't attack Wayne personally. Based on his comments in this thread, he's more interested in entertainment (as he put it) than rhetorical discourse.
I find the effect of personal attacks, like anything in life, is what you make of it. I've noticed that personal attacks tend to come out when someone with an opposing opinion makes a solid point or pokes gaping holes in an "opponents’" argument. Those in disagreement, rather than address the point or say "I may be wrong..." make a personal attack instead as a diversionary tactic. I like to examine old blogs after the "passion" has died down and 9 times out of 10 this is what has happened. Personal attacks are cheap tricks and should be treated as such. However, I admit that the personal nature is hard to shrug off at times. I have been a victim of my own anger in response to a personal attack; much to my embarrassment. In hindsight, Isabell and I had quite a comical argument that was actually sparked by others. It ended as abruptly as it began and in the process of apologizing we are developing a friendship off-blog. Though still red faced after such a public display of anger, it was more than worth it to develop a friendship with such a fine woman as Isabell. I think we are making lemonade out of our lemons, don’t you Isabell? Personal attacks should be treated with the merit they deserve… none. If we can do that they will diminish automatically. Turning the other “cheek” is easier said than done however… I am willing to give it a try… Just don’t tick me off.. HA!
Jim Boren:
I guess nobody expected your gentle and most timely reminder would turn
into a lesson in English comprehension.
To Whom it may concern:
The moment we address in the second person singular, it is personal;
"ad hominem" or otherwise.
Unsolicited advise:
Maintain a good sense of humor. Agree to disagree amicably while
maintaining convictions intact. Be able to say; I could be wrong (as pointed out
by Kim Tanksley.) And above all, be able to laugh at yourself. A simple "HA!"
can be priceless. No turning of other cheek required because the other cheek never smarted in the first place.
And that’s my hoot for the day
YE AULD OWL.
Following my regretable outburst and the subsequent "BASTA" I recieved from our esteemed fellow blogger, I was so ashamed I imposed self-exile...well.....that, and there seemed to be little interest in the left-wing viewpoint....peace
The lack of interest in "the left-wing viewpoint" may not be as acute as it may
appear. But even if we cannot bring anyone around to our thinking, we can have
fun, watching the most rabid right-wing beehivers make total fools of themselves.
We just have to be mindful that we don't hoist ourselves on our own petard in the
process.
Hello. Address your site "www.peterwall.net" was found in a public list of resources that would like to receive advertisements. If you do not want us to place on your site ads, please go to - advertising-poll.leadhoster.com - where you can easily remove your site from the list.
(Link is not "active". If this is not the appropriate branch for this post, you can remove it.)
Thanks.
days of yore cialis kaufen impenetrable
Too late Dizzy...your over inflated opinion of yourself and your life experiences will burst like a boil on your butt soon and your liberal salve will bring no relief.
Isabel,
You above statement, "rabid, right-wing beehivers making complete fools of themselves", sounds like a personal attack, namecalling. Once again, in your attempt to elevate yourself above this behavior, you violate the point of this thread.
Not that this is unusual from the liberal crowd, who continually crow about how meanspirited Republicans are. But look who is wearing T-shirts that say, "Sarah Palin is a Bitch", and who viciously go after the Palin family with fangs exposed, and who is regularly participating in age-discrimination towards Senator McCain, or who assaulted a man delivering Prop 8 signs to a church in Modesto this passed Sunday, giving him a bleeding eye, seventeen stitches in his face, and stole his signs.
Visciousness, incivility, and hatred, by and large, comes from the lefties.
I doubt Ms Lawson has the where-with-all to successfully assemble a bomb no matter how small. In the worst case presidential election scenario she may get a few tips from Obama's new Secretary of Homeland Security...Bill Ayers.
Ok Redpeach, you're just cherrypicking. There are evil, violent people throughout the spectrum of political voters. To claim otherwise is willfully misleading.
Do you forget all the nasty, sexist things Republicans said about Clinton just mere months ago? Remember Citizen's United, Not Timid (C.U.N.T.) formed by Roger Stone to campaign against Hillary? For just one example.
We could go back and forth all day trading examples of people doing stupid things on other side of the political fence, but it doesn't change anything. So why come on this forum and claim that it is only liberals who commit these egregious acts?
http://order-cheap-drugs.wikidot.com
http://official-us-drugstore.wikidot.com
Buy Paxil Buy Tricor Buy Plavix Buy Femcare Buy Copegus Buy Triphasil buy-erexin Buy Elimite Viagra Buy Online Now buy-french-red-wine Buy Echinacea Buy Aristocort Buy Adalat Buy Cialis Soft Tabs Buy Lipitor Buy Lotrisone buy-fucidin Buy Prilosec Buy Fosamax Buy Evegen buy hair loss cream buy carafate
Buy Diovan Buy Coumadin Buy Cafergot Buy Vasotec Buy Singulair Buy Retin Buy Evegen Buy Extreme Detox buy-hoodia Buy Augmentin Buy Bust Enhancer Buy Astelin Buy Casodex Buy Cytotec Buy Abilify buy discount viagra buy cytotec
Buy Betnovate Buy Aricept Viagra Cheap order-viagra Buy Retin Buy Allegra Buy Zestril Buy Flonase Buy Female Viagra Buy Phentermine Buy Danazol Buy Arimidex Buy Synalar Buy Head Strong Buy Atrovent buy detrol buy clarinex
Buy Aceon Buy Avandamet Buy Coral Calcium Buy Desyrel Buy Echinacea Buy Cordarone Buy Phentermine buy-evegen Buy Emsam Buy Phentermine Online Buy Proscar buy-extendaquin Buy Fucidin Buy Betnovate Buy Creatine buy ginseng buy actoplus met
Buy Lotrisone buy-exelon buy-ginseng Buy Cytoxan Buy Diflucan Buy Cytotec Buy Zanaflex Buy Fucidin Buy Ortho buy-endep Buy Creatine Buy Zyloprim Buy Pravachol Buy Remeron Buy Cafergot buy plendil buy remeron
Buy Zyban Buy Tramadol Buy Female Viagra Buy Avalide Buy Arimidex Buy Amaryl Buy Calan Buy Triphasil Buy Glucosamine Sulfate Buy Bactroban Buy Seroquel Buy Extendaquin Buy Famvir Buy Cheap Viagra Buy Ultracet buy vasotec buy clarinex
Buy Avalide Buy Acai Buy Baclofen buy-hoodia Buy Echinacea Buy Coral Calcium cheap-viagra-online Buy Aristocort Buy Crestor Buy Calcium Carbonate Buy Lipitor Buy Valtrex Buy Neurontin Buy Astelin Buy Cialis Soft Tabs buy nexium buy colostrum
buy-erythromycin Buy Baclofen order-viagra Buy Tazorac Buy Glucophage Buy Penis Pill cheap-viagra-online buy-grifulvin Buy Exelon Buy Levitra buy-epivir Buy Zithromax buy-dostinex buy-french-red-wine Buy Altace buy endep buy fosamax
Buy Dostinex Buy Herbal Testosterone buy-feldene Buy Coreg Buy Elimite Buy Benadryl Buy Atrovent Buy Geodon Buy Ansaid Buy Cytoxan Buy Cialis Soft Tabs buy-geodon Buy Zyrtec Buy Cardura Buy Differin buy remeron buy female viagra
Buy Fosamax Buy Head Strong Buy Discount Viagra Buy Ansaid free-viagra Buy Amoxil Buy Betnovate Buy Nicotine Buy Crestor Buy Beconase Buy Erexor buy-phentermine-online Buy Cordarone Buy Evista Buy Danazol buy cheap viagra buy ultracet
Buy Ceftin Buy Glucosamine Sulfate Buy Lexapro Buy Coreg Buy Ditropan Buy Naprosyn generic-viagra-online buy-cheap-viagra Buy Risperdal Buy Femara Buy Synthroid Buy Breast Augmentation buy-extreme-detox Buy Lipitor Buy Advair
"swift" !
See how easy it was to set them up. Even gutter vernacular thrown in for shame of the blogger. And all that from the political faction that is calling Senator Obama a "street thug." And the observation that I don't have the wherewithal to make even a small bomb is way over my head. Indeed I would not know how to make a bomb.
But why would I want to?
I can only reiterate: He who disheth out had better learneth how to taketh.
I would be interested in hearing if anyone agrees with my earlier comment:
I've noticed that personal attacks tend to come out when someone with an opposing opinion makes a solid point or pokes gaping holes in an "opponents’" argument. Those in disagreement, ... make a personal attack as a diversionary tactic.
Any comments on that idea?Once again we are getting sidelined from the meat of the issue by personal bickering.
Brian Murray: Isabell can defend herself, she doesn't need me. This is not a defense of her but a comment from information of which you are not aware. We all toot our own horns once in awhile and Isabell is no different from anyone else; however, her life experiences are of the type that gives her valuable insight. She is in fact very guarded in making them known. Her liberal nature is a testament to her history and history of her family; which is admirable. You are limiting your own experience by labeling her liberal and dismissing her based on that label. In fact I submit all in this blog are guilty of that in regards to each other. We lose so much of what people have to offer by labling, judging and dismissing.
Isabell, is it possible Bart was referencing your "mindful that we don't hoist ourselves on our own petard" comment with the bomb making thing?
Isabell...you participate in the namecalling, and personal attacks against fellow bloggers you complain that others are doing, I call you on it, and somehow this was a set-up?
Come on ... can't you just admit you are the perpetrator of breaking the rules this time?
Adam
I recall it has been, and continues to be the Socialist Democrat Party that continually plays the race card, the gender card, and whatever card they need to, to divide the electorate, and win the election.
We just have to be mindful that we don't hoist ourselves on our own petard in the
process.
Posted by: Isabell Lawson | October 11, 2008 5:08 PM
Redpeach,
Your memory appears short and selective.
At least we are all staying on topic here and this could go on for a while.The ability to create clever, fresh and pertinent analogies shows more intelligence than adding the letters eth to words and quoting dead people and lie about ceasing participation in the blog(3 times) and then resurrecting yourself.You never apologized to us for that Izzy...I'm waiting.
To "adam"
Once more I was at loss when confronted with attack that lacks context
to the topic. (See Turnipseed post.)
The old saw about hoisting on ones own petard..what has it got to do with making bombs?
I am sorry if I came across promoting myself. That arrogance would be un-intended.
PEOPLE….. you don’t have to be religious to see these are true.
John 8:1 – 11 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Bart is big on inuendo. In fact I think the Twilight Zone theme plays in the background when he speaks. He is actually quite astute but to his detriment at times, he makes us work for his meanings.
Compliments of Wikipedia:
A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications. It was often placed either inside tunnels under walls, or directly upon gates. When placed inside a tunnel under a wall and exploded, large amounts of air would often be released from the tunnel, as the tunnel collapsed. By securing the device firmly to the gate, the shape of the device allows the concussive pressure of the blast to be applied entirely towards the destruction of the gate. The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoist by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.
She is thinks to herself "Now if I can just squeeze this det cord into the box maybe I can get the lid all the way back o_" A flash then silence.
The camera then pans out and the sun begins to rise revealing a 9' deep crater in the sandy rivers edge. A wooden sign appears it reads "Welcome to Styx State Beach"
Next an armored car marked "U.S. Government" with a symbol which looks remarkably like an acorn on the door pulls up in the parking lot. The driver jumps out and opens a door. Secretary Ayers emerges taking of his sun glasses while scanning the beach. He slowly begins to approach the crater, there is smoke wafting in the breeze. He yells to the driver "I knew she would get hoisted on her own petard without me! The curtain closes...The End
Isabell,
I can only guess at what exactly Bart meant since he used his first opportunity to explain himself only to requote you.
Since this is the common usage of the term:
"The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoist by one's own petard (or to be hoist with one's own petard), which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb."
So, maybe Bart was trying to say that you couldn't even build a bomb by which you would harm yourself, let alone even be at the second step of that process where it would backfire.
Following farther back, to your comment referencing the "left-wing viewpoint", perhaps he is suggesting that the progressive side of politics has yet to assemble a proper plan, ie bomb.
Of course, this is all conjecture and if it truly is what he meant, I'd have to disagree. But if it is, he is relatively on topic.
I, Isabell Lawson, shall stop posting at my pleasure!
I, Isabell Lawson, shall resume posting at my pleasure!
Calling me names is of no consequence; invoking my anatomy with such disrespect does not reflect upon me. And anyone who is waiting for my apology for posting or not posting, shall have to wait till hell freezes over.
Is that understood?
Re: "adam"
Your post has taught me the more common usage of the saying. It lets me
understand the bomb reference. I did not know that a petard was a weapon;
an explosive respectively. I only knew the saying with the inference the French
put on it. And it has nothing to do with bombs. I am laughing, and mostly at
myself.
This has nothing to do with the topic of bloggers attacking each other. But I find that the mixed up chronology in which the posts arrive can be confusing, and hamper the flow of the "conversation" so to speak. It seems that I got to read the earlier Tanksley explanation only after I got the same info from "adam." But first or second; I thank them both.
I believe Ms Lawson throws alot of stuff out the etiology of which is a mystery to her. For me it is the wood of the faller.
Remember "Campaigns are adult activities" I'll never forget her response to that first contribution of mine here. What a welcome party she puts on! I said to myself then... this is going to be fun all the way to November 4th. Then we are going to have the best presidential administration since the last one. You guys are going to love McCain and Palin.
http://porno-lainer.ru/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/4/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/11/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/19/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/32/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/15/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/18/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/23/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/5/index.html
http://porno-lainer.ru/3/index.html
If Doonesbury was an Independent his name would be Bart Turnipseed...Latest forecast from Hell...Chance of snow! Kay-T...Two questions.Were you able to write those verses without looking them up in your Bible and how long did it take you.One of my favorites is all of Ecclesiastes(I didn't have to look up the spelling).
HA, HA... nice little story Bart. One question though, when you were out in the woods picking up acorns for your pockets, you didn't happen to pick any other plants while you were out there did you?
Thanks for the chuckle Bart:
"Then we are going to have the best presidential administration since the last one."
And zero is greater than negative one.
Brian... I was on my lunch break so I actually Googled them. How sweet of you to worry about my spiritual health. I’m glad you can spell Ecclesiastes but have you ever read it or is it your favorite because you heard it in the folk song recorded by the Byrds? It does speak of vanity and you have that nailed so maybe you have read it after all.
I happen to like George Bush at a personal level, and I think history will be much more objective about his tenure than the salon pundits. Our enemies know his core beliefs and that they like democrats can hoot and holler about infidels and and how the war is prosecuted till the cows come home. In the mean time he will continue to push on with incremental success, one day at a time.
Regardless of how much mental effort I exerted to make the necessary combination, I failed in my parody openning to capture that subtle self rightousness in the third person which Ms. Lawson is able to get across with each redebut (for you fishers...like a bass hitting a surface popper on still lakewater). The outcome made as much sense as she at times, but there was such an obvious need for her to know an answer to a great mystery in the context she so often cries out for, I tried anyway.
My preoccupation with politics and my education in the liberal arts is pursuant to
my vocation which is in the medical field, making good money. Mother believed
that a woman must have ways to support herself and never have her life dependent on some male. Respecting my husband's wishes I became a fulltime home maker.
It worked out well for us. Not that my private life is any of blogger Turnipseed's
blooming business.
I have no idea what "wood of the faller" means, but coming from Turnipseed, it
probably is something offensive.
As for the "etiology" I seem to be throwing around; I am going to apply the medical
definition: Yes! I sure would like to know the root of the malady that fuels Bart Turnipseed's motor.
Yes! I remember when the posts made fun of the name Turnipseed. And I remember that I was vocal about not liking it.
But lay off. You wont ever dominate this alpha female. This is not arrogance
but idiological and intellectual reality. And that Bart Turnipseed's always posts in
obscure fragments (of whatever) is as boring as hell, to me. I like concepts that
are clear, expressed in prose that is concise.