Come on Mark, you're missing the boat on this one

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 1/20/2003 11:12:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:

ML writes:

> It's very simple. Leslie posted a reaction to Pete's dilemma that someone sent her, an extremely stupid and typical conservative reaction, I pointed out that it was a typical stupid yadda yadda statement and backed myself up with other evidence, and got jumped by Leslie (who to be fair thought I was targeting her personally) and you. Do you understand now? If not, I can't help you.
> 

And I simply expressed the opinion that your characterization of conservatives was entirely false.  I could make a very compelling argument that in fact liberals are the ones who tend to react to events and "buzz words" without proper reflection and analysis.  The word "niggardly" ring a bell?  How about Charles Pickering labelled a racist when black leaders in MS even say the opposite is true? I may elaborate in a private e-mail if I feel like it later.

Mark writes:
 
> When you wrote this, trying to change the meaning of what I said (as conservatives always do):
> 
> >"That's right, let's turn Pete's crisis into an opportunity to make ignorant, over-generalized, and inaccurate comments about conservatives"
> 
> So your attempt to change the reason for my post into something it was not thereby making it something that shouldn't be on the list. And you're still doing so! Of course, the reason you reacted so is because I hit the nail on the head so well, was so completely accurate, and your only defense is to try to disqualify the truth of my statements...I understand. It's got to be hard, nay impossible to defend such a stance.

You just don't get it at all, Mark.  My comment simply accuses you of taking a piece written by ONE person smearing Pete and turning it into yet another boring attack on conservatives in general.  You absolutely DID take the opportunity to bash conservatives rather than simply refute the assertions of the lone writer and defend Pete.  

Mc is quoted by ML:
 
> > as those who never think through their statements and opinions and simply react 

ML writes:> 
> Well, that IS what it is. You may not like it, but reality is reality. It is an unthinking statement and it is from a conservative. You know, sort of like one which might say that if Strom Thurmond had been elected we wouldn't have had all those problems. Not much of a difference, is there? This isn't the first or the last time we'll get such a statement from conservatives.

YES!  It is an unthinking statement from a SINGLE conservative, and nothing more.  For every stupid remark made by a conservative I can throw an equally stupid, unthinking remark from a liberal.  Does it follow, then, that most conservatives AND liberals generally tend to make mindless statements?  By your logic it would.  My only beef with your statemnts was the characterization of all conservatives as similar in character to the author.  This is as unfair, as me characterizing all those on the left as just like Ted Kennedy.  

ML selectively edits Mc's words in order to mislead:
> 
> > It's not conservatives who have treated Pete unfairly thusfar, it's a host of liberals, 

ML writes:
> 
> Yeah, of course, who else would use the word "liberal" to insult someone but a liberal? The "liberal media." As usual, you're right on the money.

Jesus Christ, Mark!!  Why the hell didn't you finish the quote?  Here is the full sentence, the meaning of which would have been obvious to pretty much anyone, including you.  I can only deduce that you edited it in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad.  I would be embarassed to make such an obvious out of context edit.  Here are my words taken straight from the original post in their entirety:

"It's not conservatives who have treated Pete unfairly thusfar, it's a host of liberals, moderates, and conservatives bent on scooping each other in the relentless pursuit of readers and ratings."

It seems, Mark, that I didn't use "liberal" as an insult at all.  I simply included them among the moderates and conservatives in the media who have been guilty of smearing Pete unfairly.  

ML writes:

> 
> >And exactly who is my "hero"? Didn't quite get that one.
> 
> What, you don't know who said "You're either with us or 
> against us."? Dude.
> 
> 
> NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
>

Well, I assume you're talking about GWB.  He is not my "hero," but I do support most of the policies he has encated and is in the process of enacting.  I do not qualify or apologize for having different political views from Mark Leaman, even if it makes me an immoral, evil-doer in his mind.  Any further discussion I have with Mark on this matter will be done privately from here on.

Mc