george - you are one of the very few with whom it is possible to hold a discussion. But then again, you have the habit of it. Consequently, when you discuss, most of the rest of us are interested and respond. Don't have to agree with you, but you are interesting and informed. And not vindictive.
Unfortunately, that does not hold true with so many others. There are few facts or attributable sources ever given, and their biggest comeback is quite often a slur or personal comment. Based on nothing but their own strongly held opinions.
So, there's a difference in how we respond.
The other thing is - as CI points out - topic. While most of us welcome relevant digressions, we usually pick topics for a reason.
Mamajuana,
I too find you a bit more agreeable than several others of your persuasion.
What was the topic? From a review of the last several pages it appeared the topic was the irredemable awfulness of McGentrix and others like him. I was responding to numerous posts on this thread and the central point of the proceeding pages. I am surprised at being rebutted on that basis.
I find slurs directed at specific posters more or less equivalent to slurs directed at the subjects under discussion. Both generally involve the presumption of certainty about things which are unknowable, and the generally unnecessary inclusion of words and ideas likely to offend our interlocutors.
Not going to argue this with you, george. I will, however, point out the important aspect of tone, which is often what determines the course of a discussion. Slurs directed at a specific participant are quite often the reaction to things you bring up - presumpmtion of certainty about things which are unknowable and the generally unnecessary inclusion of words and ideas likely to offend our interlocuters (?). Exactly. Very objectionable. This is how we see it.
Very objectionable indeed. And more.
Think it'll happen, Walter? More and more here about the legalities of Guantanamo. And with Blair facing increasing pressure, and now the Niger-Iraq connection revelations (provable, although Bush uses his latest words - "revisionist history"), this is all turning into a watergate.
And the sooner, the better.
For some reason, this president is made of teflon; nothing bad sticks to him. It's a mystery that needs to be looked into to. c.i.
the problem with "what did he know and when did he know it" hardly seems to work with a president that doesn't know yet what he said or did.
I don't know, dys, I'm beginning to wonder. Watching some of the stuff coming out of the African trip. He seems more disjointed and unfocused than ever. Stares into space, can't find the words- I think maybe even he has begun to wonder. Nelson Mandela removing himself is a definite slap. A loss of face for Bush. It's not Bush who refused to talk or shake a hand, but someone did it to him! The president! And now he's being asked to explain things.
My big wonder is who will take the fall? Will it be Blair, Tenet, Powell, Rumsfeld? Rove will protect Bush, but not if it comes close to Rove. This may very well turn out to be when thieves fall out.
It's in the air. I'm curious now about the twisting and turning, because that part is becoming more obvious each day. Guantanamo may turn out to be one of their biggest mistakes, in a field of action filled with mistakes. And it's so petty. There's not one grand thing about any of it. And I understand that Fox News verified the Iraqi version of the Jessica Lynch story, but I can't verify that.
