You're playin' the victim, here, rabell22, and apparently you still don't "Get It" ... the objection and criticism applied to the article fous on the manner of presentation. I don't buy the premis, as I mentioned, but, again as I have mentioned, that's immaterial to the point the premis, and your defense of it, were not effectively or legitimately developed. The shiny hat reference was in response to your absurd allegation " ... The Bush whitehouse has all the proof classified as state secrets."
The author of the article and you in your defense of the article have well established you both feel strongly about the matter. Neither of you have provided any academically valid, forensically correct validation of your assertions.
Now, lets take a look at your most recent response:
you wrote:I have some experiance with people who had serious drinking problems
Would this be personal, anecdotal experience, or clinico-academic study, training, and research?
That would be quite pertinent to the establishment of your credentials in the matter.
Quote: and can tell you for a fact that brain damage does result from heavy drinking of booz over a long period of time.
I would have no reason to doubt, and plenty of reason to accept, that pathologic, habitual, long-term substance abuse in general, regardless of abused substance, may and typically does result in all sorts of psychologic and physiologic impairment. So does overeating. Neither point is in contention.
Quote:You choose to reject out of hand any alligations of Bushes mental imparment.
No, I rejected out of hand the manner in which the allegation that such might be so was presented and supported, and on the same basis decline to accept, as well as specifically rebut, your defense of same.
Quote:I choose to regard the article as something interesting and something to think about in relation to his attitude and actions.
Cool. Me too. I just think differently about it than do either you or the author.
Quote:I notice that you are listed as a moderator which I thought was someone who was supposed to be fairminded therefore I was surprised at your reynolds wrap crack.
Your mileage may vary, but I'm unaware of any requirement encompassed within the concept of "Fair Minded" that requires endorsement of the absurd. Tolerance of the absurd, yes; anyone is welcome to express or defend absurdity, or to consider, with or without valid basis, just about any thing or condition to be absurd. Note one more time if you will that I did not opine the premis itself and per se was absurd, but that its presentation was absurd, notwithstanding my personal assessment that evidence as available in fact does not support the allegations central to the thrust of the article. I doubt impairment as alledged in fact is symptomatically evidenced by the individual against whom those allegations were levelled. Further, I would submit contraindication of impairment, as evidenced by my own observation of the behavior exhibitted by the subject individual at discussion; I contend "that boy's all there", whether or not you or anyone else happens to like where that "there" is. He ain't where some folks are at, obviously, but that is about the only valid complaint those folks have; they neither share nor appreciate his opinions and positions. Alledging he is "Crazy/Dumb/Evil" , as so strongly is the want of some folks, is, to my mind, in and of itself tinfoil hat stuff.
Quote:Even Bill understood the reference as did I but I thought I would see how far you would go with it.
As far as you care to chase it, I suppose. Frankly, I tired of it a while back, but being fairminded, I figure since you're obviously having so much fun with it, I'd humor you.
Quote:Bill thinks you were kidding,
I doubt that very much
I don't doubt that a bit.
