It’s what I said it was — a comment, an expression of opinion. One post does not constitute a hijack anymore than one speaker constitutes a dialog. It’s no different from someone stopping by to point out that a poster made a factual error, or spelling mistake, or in this case, an unfortunate oxymoron. It may be tangential to the topic, but it is not altogether off-topic either. If you can find a thread that has stayed absolutely on-topic of the OP without veering to any other subject, and that isn’t a trivial 2 or 3 posts, I’d like to see it. Meanwhile, if you had just left the comment alone, it would have been an isolated post, espressing an opinion, and people could have gone on their merry way fretting and handwringing over the topic of Bush and civil rights. Instead, you have written (so far) five posts addressing my comment. If hijacking were your concern, one would think you would be all over several other posts that came way before mine, such as #2 from Blackacre that consisted entirely of:
What is it that made you decide not to peck at the keys when you saw that one? Or #6 from GaWd:
What does that post have to do with Bush or civil rights? It’s all about BlackAcre and what a nuisance he is. Why didn’t slap the keys to censure GaWd?
There is something afoot here other than a concern over hijacking. And you might want to look in a mirror because what the hell have you yourself said about Bush and civil rights? If I’m the gander, then you’re the goose.
Liberal: * It may be tangential to the topic, but it is not altogether off-topic either. If you can find a thread that has stayed absolutely on-topic of the OP without veering to any other subject, and that isn’t a trivial 2 or 3 posts, I’d like to see it.*
Lib, I wasn’t complaining about your minor hijacking. I was just saying that you did not make it clear that you were minor-hijacking, i.e., expressing a slightly off-topic opinion. Instead, it looked as though you were erroneously correcting stpauler.
Meanwhile, if you had just left the comment alone, it would have been an isolated post, espressing an opinion
Except that you didn’t make it clear that it was “an isolated post expressing an opinion”: we, or at least stpauler and I both, thought you simply didn’t understand his/her use of the term “independent bipartisan”.
Instead, you have written (so far) five posts addressing my comment.*
Well, I’ve written one post directly addressing your comment and (so far) five subsequent posts responding to your subsequent responses to me. If you feel that the issue has now been adequately clarified, I’m perfectly happy to drop the subject.
If hijacking were your concern, one would think you would be all over several other posts that came way before mine
No, as I said above, I wasn’t criticizing you for hijacking. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
Is a minor hijacking anything like a minor crisis or a minor miracle? We can drop it if you like. Despite our history of contention, I’ve always liked you and repsected you. This ain’t the hill I care to die on.
Here’s an idea: why don’t you try disputing the claims and facts made in the document instead of attempting to immediately discredit it by claiming that the people who wrote it are partisan or liberal, or that the OP is a “smarmy little shit?”
And until you can do that, why don’t you shut your fucking cakehole?
We can drop it if you like. Despite our history of contention, I’ve always liked you and repsected you. This ain’t the hill I care to die on.