Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

It's implicit.

Tico, how is it implicit?

BTW, the question was to Madison.

Tico's just being cutsie vindictive, because nobody took his baited question.

Tico was simply giving as good an answer as Advocate gave him.

Nah, Tico was just defending Foley because on principle he would never defend an accused child molester.

We were talking about Clinton giving Studds dispensation. In what sense do you figure that involves me "defending Foley"?

I could have sworn the title of this thread was

Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal
[/size]

Oh wait.. It is

Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal
[/size]

If you want to mock people that think what Foley did was disgusting Tico, I don't see how we can take it as anything but you are defending Foley.

You might want to look at how "It's implicit" was first used before you make a fool of yourself and claim it had nothing to do with Foley.

Tico is loathe to criticize any Republican or Republican activity. He probably blames the pages.

In this case, Advocate thinks it disgusting that Foley turned in the priest who molested him.

I think any child that is molested ought to turn in their molester. And I'm curious why Advocate thinks its sickening when someone turns in a child molester. It sure isn't "implicit."

Now, how the hell is that defending Foley?



That doesn't make sense, parados. "It's implicit" was first used by Advocate when he refused to answer the question about why he thinks its sickening for Foley to turn in the priest who molested him. "It's implicit," was next used by me, in response to Advocate's question to Madison concerning how Clinton gave Studds dispensation and seeking substantiation, in a vain attempt by me to cause Advocate to see that just because he sees an answer as "implicit," the person asking the question might not see it that way. Then snood claimed I was being vindictive, and you popped in to say, no, "Tico was just defending Foley."

Which makes no sense.

Which just goes to show that either: (a) you haven't read this thread, (b) you have read this thread, but you can't remember what position I've taken viz Foley's behavior with the pages, or (c) you don't care what position I've actually taken, you are going to make a comment like you did above, regardless of its inaccuracy.

Tico, my glib "implicit" answer was given because you were not seeking information. You had a preconceived contrary viewpoint on the matter, and should have provided that instead of asking me to flesh out my opinion. I would probably then expand on my viewpoint. My request to Madison was for support (hopefully mainstream) for his statement of fact. Can you see the difference between the two requests?

Yeah, you criticized Foley because no one could have done otherwise. However, your criticism of a Republican is the exception that proved the rule.

Of course I was seeking information. You think it's sickening for Foley to turn in the priest that molested him as a child, and I wanted to know why you thought that was sickening.



Well of course I did. That's pretty much the norm when you venture into these political threads, Advocate.



Why? You aren't scared to take a position, are you? Why do you insist -- and you've done it before -- that the other person lay their cards down before you do?

But in this case, my contrary viewpoint is quite simple. You think it's sickening that Foley turned in the priest that molested him as a child, and I don't. And I was curious to know why you thought it was.



I actually don't care now whether you do or don't. Not if you're going to be all milquetoast about it.



No. I can see Madison answering your question the very same way you answered mine, for the same bizarre reason: You had a preconceived contrary viewpoint on the matter, and should have expounded on that before questioning him. I do not see the distinction you are trying to parse between questions designed to flesh out an opinion versus questions designed to flesh out factual support.

If you don't have the courage to back them up, or to take any heat for them, perhaps you shouldn't state your opinions on these fora?



Thanks for the backhanded apology for your misstatement.

You are, in essence, lying when you say I had a preconceived view on Madison's statement. I absolutely do not, and would like to find out whether it is true. It is quite a charge that Madison makes.

Sue me.