# That's it. I have HAD IT!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 26, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190 "2004-10-26T03:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/61 "2004-10-26T18:45:09Z")
**BobLibDem** - I’ll concede your point as well, and accept that the Democratic convention was far, far less nasty than the Republican convention. And as for violence- Two months ago I would have placed money on the idea of one or the other Presidential candidate being assassinated by some outraged partisan by this point. I’m still kind of surprised it hasn’t happened. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I hate to add a dissenting note to what is obviously such a sensible thread, in so many ways, but… > > To be blunt, the reason Bush has been attacked so much is not that Democrats are just negative nellies, or that they cynically decided that negative campaigning is the best, or that Kerry is a particularly uninspiring candidate… it’s that they (we) genuinely despise an incredible number of things about him. OK, he’s not the antiChrist, nor is he, in a literal sense, incredibly stupid. But he has done a number of things as president which large numbers of people in the country violently oppose. Feh. I see no disagreement there. I agree strongly that Bush has fucked up in a lot of places, and I accept that some areas where you think he fucked up are simply issues you and I have vastly different opinions or priorities on. > [@](#): > > I mean, you’re free to disagree with my position, but as I see it, he lead the country to war under shaky and/or false pretenses. What possible worse charge could there be? He LED THE COUNTRY TO WAR under FALSE PRETENSES. And therein lies the rub- you state that I’m free to disagree with your position. I do- I don’t think those pretenses were false, or perceived as false at the time, and I think there’s a big difference between lying about the reasons to go to war vs. not looking too closely at the reasons to go to war. But I, likewise, accept your position even as I disagree with it. > [@](#): > > Again, I may be wrong about that, and I’m not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot or a bully or a nazi or something, but why SHOULDN’T I be passionate about that? Why shouldn’t I hate the direction he’s taken the country? Why shouldn’t I express that anger and rage and hatred? Of course you should be passionate. But it’s the first sentence that’s really the difference- you’re not assailing and maligning Bush’s supporters or all Republicans in general as idiots or bullies or nazis. The problem isn’t people who believe something and feel passionately about it; that’s a very good thing. It’s the people who believe something and feel that they have to malign everyone who doesn’t feel the same way in order to prove to themselves that their opinion has worth. We’ve had three threads started in the last week on whether Republicans are evil/immoral/stupid or not. That’s not a discussion of policy; it’s an ad hominem attack so that certain partisans can gloat to each other about how ‘moral’ they are. And don’t think I’m just singling out the anti-Bush people; it’s much more common and acceptable on this board, but I’m sure over at Free Republic there are plenty of people attacking Democrats in just the same way. The question is, how do you stop that? I wish I knew. I used to try and deal with it by rationally explaining my position and trying to logically refute points, but _Jesus_ I’m tired of dealing with people whose main goal seems to be to insult me. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/62 "2004-10-26T19:13:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think Bush is a TERRIBLE president, whose actions have been a disaster for this country. Honestly, I’m tempted to even go so far as to say that his administration is evil. I won’t back down from that position, nor will I be ashamed of my passion in stating and defending it. However, that doesn’t mean that all Bush supporters are evil, mean, bad, dumb, stupid, traitorous, rich, greedy, racist, gun-nuts, or any other insult you want to throw in there. Of course, it is unreasonable to claim that all Bush supporters are all stupid or evil, but the fact that, according to you, a lot of people support someone who - is a TERRIBLE president - whose actions have been a disaster for this country - whose administration is evil has to have \*some \* influence on how you view these supporters. You can’t divorce your opinion of people from their views on issues. If you don’t feel passionate about how bad a certain belief is, then it makes sense that you can just agree to be civil and friends with people who hold that belief. But, if you feel very passionate that a certain belief is horrible and a disaster, then how can you be friends with or respect people who hold that belief and say “we can agree to disagree”. No matter how “good” someone is, if he says he believes that all Blacks and Jews should be murdered, then I can’t just politely say “we can agree to disagree” and be friends with him or respect him. So, it makes sense that some people (who feel that Bush has been and will be a disaster, both for the U.S. and for Iraq, and the world at large) will not be able to just be polite and friendly and have a high opinion of people who support him. To repeat, it is impossible to divorce how you view people from the opinions they hold. If they hold horrible (to you) beliefs, then it is unreasonable to expect you to chalk it up to “matters of opinion” and respect them. The same argument holds for both sides, of course. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/63 "2004-10-26T19:28:52Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > And the inevitable **rjung** partisan comment in a thread decrying partisanship rears its ugly head. :rolleyes: It isn’t partisanship if it’s true. Want to prove me wrong? Name the left-wing attack-pundits who were dogging Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush Sr. during _their_ terms in office. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > Nobody cares about who’s to blame, except for you. If you wish to solve a problem, you must identify the cause. First rule of any process-improvement methodology. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/64 "2004-10-26T19:41:25Z")
I sure as hell care who’s to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/65 "2004-10-26T19:52:02Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > If I don’t get a decent reason to vote FOR somebody by friday, I’m voting Libertarian for president. In a nutshell, because John Kerry is a good, strong, decent man who cares about this country. All things stem from that. You have to do a little work yourself, but these will get you started: [http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html](http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html) (look over on the left side for issues) [http://www.thekerrymovie.com](http://www.thekerrymovie.com) (free download of fascinating movie which will give insight into Kerry’s character) [http://www.c-span.org/](http://www.c-span.org/) (videos of speeches and debates, I highly recommend the Elizabeth Edwards Town Hall Meeting) [http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=92959](http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=92959) (speeches from the Democratic Convention) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/66 "2004-10-26T19:55:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Kerry defenders on the SDMB have been more or less upfront that they could care less who the warmed-over 60s Viet Nam protestor in the expensive suit is - if he ain’t Bush, he’s their fair-haired boy. Gee, that would be a pretty convincing argument if it weren’t the exact opposite of [the truth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=252802&highlight=Kerry). But go on living in your fantasy la-la land anyway. Reality is overrated. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/67 "2004-10-26T19:59:55Z")
I side with all the optimists. Democracy is messy, so what?! _Bring it on_! We are doing it right, or pretty close to. Look how the rest of the world sucks. In Russia, for example, sitting President refuses to debate his opponents. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/68 "2004-10-26T20:02:12Z")
I think some of the sources of overheated partisanship are indeed attributable to a particular party. But in the interest of not fanning the flames of the debate over whether Bush is evil (well, _duh_), I’ll mention two that are more technical: \*\*1) Partisan redistricting. \*\* Both parties are complicit in redrawing the lines to create lots of ‘safe seats’ on each side. The result has been a much more divided, much more partisan House of Representatives, one in which the political center has been marginalized. And in a way, it seems to have reversed the pecking order of the two houses of Congress: the House is clearly the Senate’s daddy these days, and my take is that it’s mostly because they’re more shrill and driven than the Senate. \*\*2) The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. \*\* Broadcasters can afford to give airtime to sharply ideological voices, knowing that they don’t have to give equal time to their opposite numbers. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Until we’ve worked out a consistent and reliable ballot-casting system that combines the advantages of electronic technology with a durable and tamper-resistant record, we’re going to be hearing a lot of fuss when election time rolls around. Shoot, that’s easy: make your selections on a touch screen. It prints out a ballot on card stock with your selections. You check the card to make sure you’re voting for the people you thought you were voting for. You feed the card into a machine that reads (and keeps) the card and tabulates your votes. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/69 "2004-10-26T20:22:34Z")
For me, it’s hard not to be nasty when I feel that Bush is truly taking away the rights and freedoms of others and of myself, and that he is making religion into policy. It is very difficult not to be nasty when he tries to legislate anti-gay policies, or tries to hamstring Roe v. Wade. I feel truly **threatened** by this man. I may call him dumb but unfortunately that is not true. He is _deliberately_ doing these things, and I find that bone chilling. So please accept my apologies for being emotional about this year’s election, but I have never in my life felt threatened by the government before, and for me it is truly scary. I imagine it is something akin to what people who live in countries who don’t have the protection of the constitution feel. I can sympathize with liberals and democrats who call our president names. I imagine conservatives and Republicans have their own reasons to call Kerry names. I just want to point out that for some of us, this election could literally mean a life of marginalization or death. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/70 "2004-10-26T20:26:08Z")
I just want to point out that you’re being hysterical. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/71 "2004-10-26T20:31:51Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > \*\*2) The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. \*\* Broadcasters can afford to give airtime to sharply ideological voices, knowing that they don’t have to give equal time to their opposite numbers. Dude, the FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, so don’t pretend that this is anything new. Both Presidents Bush and President Clinton have had the advantage of not having to share time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/72 "2004-10-26T20:37:32Z")
I don’t think he’s claiming it’s anything new. This raise in the ire and the demonization of opponents has been ramping up for 30 years now, at least. The repeal of that certainly is part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/73 "2004-10-26T20:41:25Z")
I think it really makes **Zev** ’s point when so many of you can’t even have a rational discussion about why this election is so nasty without throwing in your own partisan attacks or defenses of the candidates. > [@rjung](#): > > It isn’t partisanship if it’s true. That’s ridiculous. If I publish a comparison of Bush and Kerry, picking only the negatives from one of them and the positives of the other, it’s true, but it’s still partisan. And how can you possibly say that “I blame the right-wing media – specifically, the unholy trinity of Limbaugh, Coulter, and O’Reilly, who’ve taught an entire generation that name-calling and shrillish yelling is an acceptable substitute for political discourse.” is objectively true and unpartisan? Political name-calling and yelling have been around as long as politics. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/74 "2004-10-26T20:48:33Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > I just want to point out that you’re being hysterical. No, she’s not. While it’s very easy to roll your (general you) eyes when someone brings up any concern that smacks of an accusation of fascism, this administration has earned those concerns. > [@](#): > > [The 14 Characteristics of Fascism](http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html) > by Lawrence Britt > Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism (“Fascism Anyone?,” Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine’s policy. > > The 14 characteristics are: > > \*\*1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism \*\* > Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. > \*\*2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights \*\* > Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > **3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause** > The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > \*\*4. Supremacy of the Military \*\* > Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. > \*\*5. Rampant Sexism \*\* > The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. > \*\*6. Controlled Mass Media \*\* > Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > \*\*7. Obsession with National Security \*\* > Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. > \*\*8. Religion and Government are Intertwined \*\* > Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions. > \*\*9. Corporate Power is Protected \*\* > The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. > \*\*10. Labor Power is Suppressed \*\* > Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . > \*\*11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts \*\* > Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. > \*\*12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment \*\* > Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > \*\*13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption \*\* > Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. > \*\*14. Fraudulent Elections \*\* > Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. It’s hard not to be at least a little paranoid when your government starts looking like it thinks fascism is a pretty good idea. No, I’m not that far gone yet, but damn, it’s a bit eerie. My main issue is Iraq. We shouldn’t be there, we never should have gone there. The anger I have comes from the seeming callousness of those who, well, seem not to be concerned about the innocent men, women and children killed for no good reason. If people get a bad impression of me because I’ve gotten angry in other threads, it’s nothing compared to the impression I’ve gotten from people who don’t care about the dead innocents. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/75 "2004-10-26T20:56:43Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I think it really makes **Zev** ’s point when so many of you can’t even have a rational discussion about why this election is so nasty without throwing in your own partisan attacks or defenses of the candidates. Indeed. I thank Zev for starting this thread. He spared me the trouble, since I most assuredly could not have done nearly as good of a job as he did. The thing that gets is that there are plenty of people on this board who have been transformed into jackasses because of these issues, yet somehow they don’t _recognize_ that they’re jackasses, or else they _defend_ being jackasses (because their side is “right,” of course). It is just amazing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/76 "2004-10-26T20:59:01Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Dude, the FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, so don’t pretend that this is anything new. Both Presidents Bush and President Clinton have had the advantage of not having to share time. Well, 1987 wasn’t yesterday, but IMHO the present level of rabidness in our politics dates from only a few years after that, and a certain radio “entertainer” and his imitators have had a lot to do with the current state of attack politics. I remember the bile he aimed at Clinton in the 1992 campaign - “draft dodger” (IOKIYAR), etc. * * * Right now, the GOP is airing ads and passing out leaflets in Pennsylvania, trying to make the impression that Congressional candidates Lois Murphy and Ginny Schrader are in bed with the [Taliban](http://www.loismurphy.org/downloads/jgfc-taliban.rm) (movie clip) and [Hezbollah](http://www.blogswarm.net/nrcc_hezbollah.pdf) (pdf), respectively. The Dems aren’t playing at anywhere near that level of slime - and when they point out someone’s connections to Halliburton, Enron, or Tom DeLay, those connections are usually actually there. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/77 "2004-10-26T21:00:12Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > If people get a bad impression of me because I’ve gotten angry in other threads, “Bad impression”? I’d say more like “no credibility.” So much so, I’d warrant, that they simply _tune out_ anything you have to offer, including any cites you might offer. > [@](#): > > it’s nothing compared to the impression I’ve gotten from people who don’t care about the dead innocents. But who cares when you’ve lost credibility because of your behavior? As I said on another thread, some probably are saying to themselves, “Who cares what she thinks? She lost her credibility a long time ago.” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/78 "2004-10-26T21:05:44Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Indeed. > > I thank Zev for starting this thread. He spared me the trouble, since I most assuredly could not have done nearly as good of a job as he did. > > The thing that gets is that there are plenty of people on this board who have been transformed into jackasses because of these issues, yet somehow they don’t _recognize_ that they’re jackasses, or else they _defend_ being jackasses (because their side is “right,” of course). It is just amazing. Even worse is when they hijack a **non** -political thread as an excuse to fling shit on the walls. If we’re talking about cute fluffy bunnies, I _don’t fucking care if they remind you of this or that candidate’s testicles!_ Ya wanna talk politics? Fine, there’s thirty billion fucking threads on this board that are all filled with the sound and fury signifying nothing that you can go jerk off in to your heart’s content, so don’t sully ours. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/79 "2004-10-26T21:06:24Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > “Bad impression”? I’d say more like “no credibility.” So much so, I’d warrant, that they simply _tune out_ anything you have to offer, including any cites you might offer. > But who cares when you’ve lost credibility because of your behavior? As I said on another thread, some probably are saying to themselves, “Who cares what she thinks? She lost her credibility a long time ago.” And I should care what people who don’t care about DEAD CHILDREN think of me? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/80 "2004-10-26T21:09:36Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > And I should care what people who don’t care about DEAD CHILDREN think of me? Missing the point, missing the point . . . Why am I not surprised? Look at it this way—you put up cites. Perhaps they are excellent cites. But when they come from someone who has behaved in such a way so they have **ZERO CREDIBILITY** , those very nice cites will be ignored. Is that what you want? Yes or no? Could you just focus for a second here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190.md?page=5)