I’m not really indignant. I just think you’re not very smart.
You did quote me falsely. There are more ways to quote than by using a quote box. You responded to my post with a quote box, went on a harangue and put “delusional, manipulated, ignorant cow” in quotes while asking me a question so that it appeared I had called her such a thing. In fact, I did not.
If you say it’s a mistake or was unintended, than that’s cool. Mistakes happen.
But in fact, the context of your post is quoting me with quotation marks saying something I didn’t say.
The description of Ms. Sheehan was a compilation of what had previously been said about Ms. Sheehan, both in the press, and alluded to in various comments on internet message boards, here and elsewhere.
I’m not that smart about the particulars of this messageboard, but I know what I wrote in good faith, and my own intentions, and if it is truly against the rules, I will accept it (not to mention saving the money of signing up).
So please take your nonsense about this matter to the administrators, or give it up.
I made a BIG, BIG boo-boo when I compared zeeny to Zoe not long ago. I say this not necessarily to denigrate zeeny, but it’s become quite apparent to me that I was hasty in my analysis of zeeny, which was based on the first post of hers I’d seen – and which also happened to be directed at me – that caused me to see certain qualities in zeeny that subsequent posting activity by her/him has shown not to exist as a matter of fact. As I said, it’s not my intention to denigrate zeeny, but I wanted to go on record as saying to Zoe – whom I admire and like as much as anybody on this board – that I was in error. For better or worse, zeeny is nothing like you and I apologize for making such a hasty and erroneous comparison.
I can’t for the life of me figure out if the raindog’s post above is on the level or satirical. At first I was inclined to take it seriously, but given the photo of the smiling and obviously-delighted-at-the-attention Cindy Sheehan on Drudge the last couple of days, coupled with the fact that I’d heard nothing about these loses on the news, something didn’t quite jive. Neither did the comment about its all being Bush’s fault, unless he personally caused the New Orleans flooding and somehow caused the ice under Teddy Sheehan to break loose. So I did a little research, and lo and behold, the link he posted is from The Onion. So, to anyone out there inclined to accept the raindog’s intentional or inadvertent whoosh, it just ain’t so.
(And what’s up with Italics? I haven’t been able to italicize anything the last couple of days. I tried to italicize both ‘Drudge’ and ‘The Onion’ above and got this as the postable result: *Drudge and *The Onion…even though the composition box showed showed them coded correctly.)
It was socially clueless and insulting enough (to your friend) that you initally compared me, a total stranger, with a longtime acquaintance.
But now, to compound matters, you remind your friend yet again of this clueless public display. And for what?
To offer a back-handed insult to me.
Based on partisan politics, or your own petty pride, you will remind your friend, and everyone else here, of your recent alleged poor character judgement and social cluelessness, that originally insulted your friend and fellow poster.
Way to go, Starving Artist.
I can only feel sorry for your friends and loved ones.
If this is the extent and strength of the opposition (formerly known as the majority), I think it might be time to set up professionally staffed crisis centers for grief counselling and refreshments.
I must remember to be merciful and gracious (it’s been awhile since I’ve needed to).
Oh, believe me, I was fighting the impulse to insult the shit out of you the entire time I was composing that post, but I managed to restrain myself. The fact of the matter is, it’s been bugging me all along that I had so misjudged you based on what appeared to be a singularly heartfelt (and at its base, good-hearted) post by you. It’s also been bugging me ever since that Zoe might think that I thought of her as an unpleasant, confrontational, smug and groundlessly superior asshat. Just wanted to make damn sure that wasn’t the case.
As for your delight in my exposition of my mistake to other members of the board here, I’m more than willing to let my posting record stand on its own. Those who know me here already know my character; those who don’t aren’t likely to take your word for it. I don’t bother myself with concern over what others may think should I own up to a mistake I’ve made. What’s right is right, and if I make a mistake then I own it and I just have to let the chips fall where they may.
And on preview, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that if you think you’re gonna impress anyone around here…even your own political allies. It was really quite childish and lame. (But on second thought, that really is your style…isn’t it?)
Guess you’ve never heard of Fox News and its imitators in cable news, nor of right-wing talk radio, nor of the right-wing think-tanks or blogs or whatever. No Rush Limbaugh, no Bill O’Reilly, no Hindrocket, no Michelle Malkin.
As I said in response to Updike:
If you’ve got a better response than Updike had, go for it.
I belong to another smaller message board.
One of our members returned to her home in Louisana yesterday.
I will not link to that board or give out any other information about her until I have her permission to do.
Period.
However, this is what she had to say about the National Guard in Vermilion, Louisana.
Sort of sounds like she feels as if there is an occupying army in her area , now doesn’t it?
Actually, you are right, i"As for your delight in my exposition of my mistake to other members of the board here, I’m more than willing to let my posting record stand on its own." does sound like something I would say.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
she thinks that the armed military presence (not their logistical talents, not the search-and-rescue efforts, but clearly the armed presence) in New Orleans, 18 days after Katrina, was rather excessive. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that there’s no argument for that position.
Isn’t the National Guard pretty much always armed, being military and all?
Seems pretty silly to me to disregard their logistical talents and search-and-rescure efforts and focus on the fact that they were armed. :rolleyes:
Look up ‘distinguish’ and ‘disregard’ in your dictionary. These are not synonyms.
There were surely military in N.O. at that time who were doing logistical or rescue operations with a sidearm incidentally strapped to their hips. But judging from pictures and press accounts, there were also a lot of military in N.O. at that time who were seemingly doing neither, but were rather walking around holding big damn guns out in front of them.
But Starving Artist, you didn’t restrain yourself. Not completely.
Your post was meant as an insult to me. That was obvious. But you chose an indirect (and IMO, less honest) way to do that.
I’m not especially proud of my posts in this thread. Raw emotion is a vulnerability, and rarely comfortable - for either the ventee, or those reading along.
But as far as I know, this is the appropriate forum for venting and ranting, however childish. Isn’t that so?
In fact, this particular forum (the Pit), is why a friend referred me here in the first place, after I complained about the indirect anger and insults on another messageboard we frequent.
Is your passive-aggressive anger more appropriate (or mature, or valid) than my direct replies? Or are you only fooling yourself with that rationale?
Something to think about. I’ll give you this: I am thinking about it too.
Echo chambers. I want echo chambers. Did those sources all call Cindy Sheehan deluded?
Ok.
You said:
First, that’s not what I heard her say. You’re putting thoughts into her head. Secondly, your logic is backwards. It’s not for me or anyone to prove that there is “no argument” for a given position, it is up to the person making the argument to demonstrate that it has merit.
A false premise. What makes you so sure that the ongoing presence is to protect against “marauding gangs?” Are they not controlling access to the city? Handing out food and water? rebuilding levees? FYI, the Coast Guard which rescued so many, so admirably is part of the armed forces.
Not at all. Calling it an occupation is delusional. “Occupation” suggests the armed forces have taken control of foreign sovereign ground to displace the previous government. Neither of those conditions have been met.
