liberal drivel

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 1/18/2003 11:46:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:

> >That's right, let's turn Pete's crisis into an opportunity to make ignorant, over-generalized, and inaccurate comments about conservatives.
> 
> Mc:
> 
> None of that has any relation to anything *I* wrote. As it was, I was just reponding to the typical tired old conservative character assasination of someone like Pete, the "silly, foppish 60's liberal." Now THAT was truly an overgeneralized innaccurate and most of all ignorant as Hell statement. I am not allowed to respond to that, now? What is this, Nazi America? Is that what you're going for? How much freedom do you think you can take away from us, HUH? I keep forgetting how it's a bad thing to disagree with your side. I'm not with you, so 
> I'm against you. According to your hero.

What on Earth are you talking about?  When did I ever even imply that you shouldn't be allowed to make statements in response to others?  I simply attacked your statement for the hypocrisy and ignorance it displayed.  You used a statement made by one person about the "typical foppish 60s liberal" to characterize conservatives as those who never think through their statements and opinions and simply react to things they hear.  I simply called you on it.  It's not conservatives who have treated Pete unfairly thusfar, it's a host of liberals, moderates, and conservatives bent on scooping the other in the relentless battle for readers and ratings.  In fact, the majority of those in media occupations are left-leaning.  I never said you were against me, just grossly flawed in your assertions.  And exactly who is my "hero"?  Didn't quite get that one.

mc