WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

You're being a pretty rude little smart-ass.

Craven, I know nothing about you personally, only about your behavior herein. You are in an awkward position, being both owner/host and participant. If I were in your shoes as owner/host, I'd probably steer clear of these threads, particularly if they trouble you as much as they seem to.

Why jump into the middle of a such a conversation with an assertion accompanied by no facts and expect everyone to believe you or at least let you off the hook?

In that context, your response -- to a plea for factual material to chew on -- was just way out of line.

Tart

It seems craven has arrived at the opinion that you, I, Lola...and anyone else with six fingers...are properly at home out in the fringes. Or, he's having his period. I'll miss his friendship, but less his tirades.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

I've lived in some nations where there is the exact rule Tartarin describes, no political contributions are legally allowed. In the nations I describe the effect is more corruption in government.

Craven

Big difference between coincidence and causation, yes?

Do you mean to suggest that what I speak of is coincidental without knowing a thing about what I speak of? It would be odd to have a preferred answer without knowing the question.

craven

I meant only to suggest that you'd have to make a pretty thorough case to tie these two together, showing a causal relationship. It's certainly not apparent on the face of it that such a relationship would or does exist.

Just the facts, please, ma'am -- Craven, I mean.

Blatham,

You still purport to know an awful lot without any information.

Tartarin,

When you restrict yourself to factual postings I'll watch the pigs flying around in amusement.

There is no likelihood that political discussion will be divested of opinion.

Ducking, ducking. Quack quack, Duce.

Par for the course.

. . .You dropped into a fruitful conversation here in which some of us are depending on the knowledge of others. And then you cut and ran. You're being a pretty rude little smart-ass.

craven

Your second last post speaks about which one of us more appropriately? You continue to argue that there are opinions over on one side, and opinions over on the other side, and the middle is the place to be. It's a good motto, except sometimes, when it is a cowardly and soft-headed abrogation of principle and responsibility.

What is it you want to see? Everyone agreeing that there is nothing terribly important afoot in the present? Nothing to get worked up about?

Take a good read back through this thread. Read the piece on Strauss. Take it up with me point by point, but not if you are going to start with some prejudice that extremes do not exist already, that any suggestion they do is itself extremist. I'll do this with you, and in a disciplined manner, but only under that proviso.

Tartarin wrote:

Quote:

You're being a pretty rude little smart-ass.

Not wanting to write extensively to you is not rude, it's simply a realization of the futility. But the above comment by you is rude. It's also the reason I sometimes won't respond in detail. You frequently simply attack the person who disagrees with you.

Blatham,

I have never once argued that the middle is the place to be. No need for the 'provision'. I probably won't be discussing much with you in the future.

Tart

It seems craven has arrived at the opinion that you, I, Lola...and anyone else with six fingers...are properly at home out in the fringes. Or, he's having his period. I'll miss his friendship, but less his tirades.

All Blatham said was there was a big difference between coincidence and causation. He didn't accuse you of anything, except as I said in my previous post that he said it a little flippantly. You took that to mean he was questioning whether you would say something you didn't know a lot about. Or that he seemed to think you had made your claim without knowing anything about it.

Still you didn't call any names, you said, rather curtly, that it would be odd to have a preferred answer without knowing the question. You may not have been angry, but it did sound that way to me too.

Nothing I can see here that's provocative, but maybe there is and I don't see it.

I don't want to put words in Tartarin's mouth, but I think she was likely jumping to Blatham's defense as he has done for her before. It was perhaps percipitous, but she was probably angry about her perception that you had attacked Blatham. You must have taken it as provocative and I will say that it sounded that way to me too.

You may have been feeling attacked (maybe not) because this response seems curt and sarcastic. Provocative and opinionated, clearly a response that was a "you do it too" thing. We've all have been guilty of this lately (like me on the other thread.)

Then Tartarin wrote:

Quote:

Ducking, ducking. Quack quack, Duce.

Funny, but it may have been poking fun at you, I can see that you would take it that way, I did.

Then the thing escalates, you responded:
Par for the course.

With rolling eyes, indicating a self satisfied knowing of all. Maybe not, but I took it that way. But you were angry, it's understandable.

Then Tartarin responded:

Quote:

. . .You dropped into a fruitful conversation here in which some of us are depending on the knowledge of others. And then you cut and ran. You're being a pretty rude little smart-ass.

Here, I think Tartarin makes a valid point, but she gives into her anger and calls you a "smart-ass." (Similar to the name I called you the other day.) I shouldn't have done it then, and neither should Tartarin (in my opinion) have done it here, but still, given that everyone is escalating and no one making peace, it's the ultimate eventual conclusion to these things.

You tell Blatham that you won't ever be discussing much with him again. It's a low blow (even though you haven't called him a name), it's still a very upsetting thing to say to a friend.

To Tartarin you point out that she's been rude (which she has) for calling you a name, but you forget to mention that you've rolled your eyes at her, etc. -- all as provocative as the other.

Tartarin then tries to make the point she was making earlier, but this time she doesn't call you a name. Still it's very clear that she's angry and blaming you. (When really, it's everyone's fault.)

And he says here, in effect, "go on, leave. See if I care. And besides, you're a girl." This is clearly very rude and defensive. But remember that you did tell him you were rejecting him for good. That hurts, I'm sure. Still Blatham should have, under ideal conditions not said it. But at this point everyone has said something they should not have said. And as I pointed out to you the other day, we all have our moments. It seems we're having more moments lately, I wonder why? Interesting question, it's surely not about politics.

Now here I am, trying to make the peace. And I hope you don't all jump on me and beat me to death because I've said you were all naughty. But I've said more than that. We're all getting our feelings hurt lately. A lot. Maybe we should take better care with friends. We can disagree without threats and name calling. (most of the time.) When it breaks down, let's notice and apologize......then we can go on..

Lola, remote psychoanalysis is not safe. "self satisfied knowing of all"???/

There's rather too much been floated beneath this bridge now. Outside of getting smashing drunk together, seeing each other's actual faces and hearing each other's tones of voice, this will not be repairable.