efc wrote:The problem you lot have is that you don't like my views, and don't like the fact that I can substantiate them The truly pitiful are the likes of Margaret who take a potshot, then in the same breath say they'll add me to their "foe" list. Pathetic.
No, actually, for me the problem is NO, you and other repetitive posters do NOT substantiate your views. You equate volume of postings with substance and often end up back in grade school with name-calling and taunts. Which is why I (and presumably Byron) have learned to generally ignore political postings. Of course, I have this naive dedication and memory of the value of reasoned discourse -- but I believe that a similar valuation of these ideals by conservatives sadly, passed away with William Buckley. And without Buckley to tether you all to the post of "sense" you have gone back into the wilderness of modern John Birchism, which is now called "Tea Bagging."
Which is why the topic of this post rings with an (at least) American resonance which is so true. "What can we do with Politics" -- when one side has regressed to grade school taunts and intimidations instead of reasoned discourse?
You've got yourself into a bit of a muddle haven't you. I posted substantive comments. You purport to respond to my post but you ignore the substance of my post, and in the same breath claim I haven't dealt with the substance. And for good measure you don't substantiate your own claims.
And despite your failed attempt to claim the moral high ground it's clear that you're ok with people having a go at me, and running away to hide behind "foe" (eg. Margaret). It's also clear that you're ok with "grade school taunts" being directed in my direction (eg. Alsiony).
Let me help you by repeating the part of my post you missed out:
"Why on earth are you so missing the point. It's Byron who cares, and I'm responding to that. Byron announces he's putting me down as "foe", ie. he doesn't want anything to do with me. Then he contradicts himself, in Music and this forum, by responding to me. Clearly there is a contradiction there, and all I did was point that out. You apparently have a problem with that, and concentrate on the response whilst ignoring the context."
To put it another way Byron's behaviour raises the question of whether he actually added me as foe. If (and that's the word I used) that was the case then of course he would have lied.
So why don't you respond to that, instead of regurtitating unsubstantiated generalisations. Do you agree that Byron's behaviour was inconsistent with his statement that he added me as "foe"?
And whilst you're about it why not provide examples of what you mean by "grade school with name-calling and taunts". That way I will know what you're referring to.