Ban krazen1211

[Kevin]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

[Emperor SJoyce]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

[Kevin]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

[asexual trans victimologist]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

[The Mikado]

We don't ban people just for being useless (though that is a contributing factor in several cases, like Derek and Rochambeau).

[Vosem]

No, krazen shouldn't be banned.

We don't ban people just for being useless (though that is a contributing factor in several cases, like Derek and Rochambeau).

Rochambeau, FINE, but Derek should'n't've been banned -- he was too entertaining.

[BigSkyBob]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

[BigSkyBob]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

After most elections there are folks whom are happy if the Democrat wins, and there are folks whom are happy when the Republican wins. I would put Krazen1211 strongly in the second camp, and numerous posters here in the first camp. Surely, I strongly suspect that he took as much pleasure in the victory of Scott Walker as I did. That said, I have not noted him as being a particularly strong conservative ideologue. There seems to be a strong streak of prejuidice in this forum that equates being Republican with being "right-wing" and "extremist."

[asexual trans victimologist]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

After most elections there are folks whom are happy if the Democrat wins, and there are folks whom are happy when the Republican wins. I would put Krazen1211 strongly in the second camp, and numerous posters here in the first camp. Surely, I strongly suspect that he took as much pleasure in the victory of Scott Walker as I did. That said, I have not noted him as being a particularly strong conservative ideologue. There seems to be a strong streak of prejuidice in this forum that equates being Republican with being "right-wing" and "extremist."

You haven't noticed him being a 'particularly strong conservative ideologue' for the same reason that I don't notice people being 'big into early modern Japanese literature'.

All this being said, it's difficult to argue for banning the guy under the terms of service. It just ought to be equally difficult to actually defend the content of what he posts, at least without extreme shame.

[bgwah]

Krazen is boring. I don't know why you guys let him get under your skin so much.

[BigSkyBob]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

Again, we are talking about what you think Krazen1211 "almost said." What he did write exists in the Atlas archives. What you believe he "almost said" exists in your imagination. I cannot research your imagination in the Atlas archives. Nor, can I prove a negative. I have no reason to believe the alleged "almost" quote exists anywhere than under a very tortured product of your imagination. You are free to produce the quote you interpreted as "almost" meaning what you claim, and explain why it "almost" says what you think it "almost" does.

When I read, "So-and-so almost said..." my typical response is to assume the person is putting words into someone else's mouth in order to appeal to the strawman fallacy. It is a particularly egregious appeal to the strawman fallacy precisely because the issuer of the strawman fallacy grants himself a giant out.

P.S. Would you care to list the posters here whom have posted both a social and economic "conservative" score of near "10.0?"

[Senator Clarence]

BigSkyBob- your "P.S." is a key point here... most of us to the right on this board are far closer to the center then most of the folks on the left. This isn't to take a shot at the left- it's to show that if they want this board to be devoid of debate and discssusion by trying to boot every one who they perceive as too far right.... they'd be ignoring the viewpoint of the majority of this country

[asexual trans victimologist]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

Again, we are talking about what you think Krazen1211 "almost said." What he did write exists in the Atlas archives. What you believe he "almost said" exists in your imagination. I cannot research your imagination in the Atlas archives. Nor, can I prove a negative. I have no reason to believe the alleged "almost" quote exists anywhere than under a very tortured product of your imagination. You are free to produce the quote you interpreted as "almost" meaning what you claim, and explain why it "almost" says what you think it "almost" does.

It's a flaw in your own imagination if you can't interpret repeated references to somebody as a 'nutter' because of her, uh, 'Bay Area lifestyle' that way. I'm actually very interested in how one could conceivably interpret it differently in this case. If I were to say that you were a nutter because of your 'Alabama politics', even though most people from Alabama are entirely sane, I'm sure you'd rightly divine that I was calling you excessively socially authoritarian and possibly kind of racist.

When I read, "So-and-so almost said..." my typical response is to assume the person is putting words into someone else's mouth in order to appeal to the strawman fallacy. It is a particularly egregious appeal to the strawman fallacy precisely because the issuer of the strawman fallacy grants himself a giant out.

Oh, no, I'm not going to use an out here, don't you worry. I'm going to put my foot down. Krazen engaged in blatantly hateful dog-whistling at a sitting member of the United States Congress and it was clear in the context of the argument that he knew that he was doing so.

P.S. Would you care to list the posters here whom have posted both a social and economic "conservative" score of near "10.0?"

I don't pay huge amounts of attention to things like this. It's not a matter of what one believes so much as how one believes it. I don't know offhand what Krazen's 'scores' ostensibly are but for example TJ has a very conservative social score, not so much economic, and it's possible to talk constructively to TJ about social issues without him defaulting to insulting people and engaging in bizarre populist rhetoric and appeals to social consensus that would be irrelevant to the argument even if it actually existed. So it may be hypocritical to criticize him for 'extremism' within the window of acceptable American political discourse and political beliefs but I certainly don't see how it is to criticize him for being aggressively offensive and dismissive of any opposing viewpoints at every conceivable opportunity. (I hate to drag other specific names into this, but you'll note that I'm less than fond of some of our more immature leftist posters too.)

It should be emphasized that I really don't want the guy banned. That's a clearly tendentious and unfair application of the terms of service. That doesn't mean that the rhetorical calisthenics required to actually defend him annoy me any less.

[oakvale]

Krazen is boring. I don't know why you guys let him get under your skin so much.

^ Couldn't agree more.

[BigSkyBob]

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and civil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

Again, we are talking about what you think Krazen1211 "almost said." What he did write exists in the Atlas archives. What you believe he "almost said" exists in your imagination. I cannot research your imagination in the Atlas archives. Nor, can I prove a negative. I have no reason to believe the alleged "almost" quote exists anywhere than under a very tortured product of your imagination. You are free to produce the quote you interpreted as "almost" meaning what you claim, and explain why it "almost" says what you think it "almost" does.

It's a flaw in your own imagination if you can't interpret repeated references to somebody as a 'nutter' because of her, uh, 'Bay Area lifestyle' that way. 

You have radically changed your position. First, you claimed that Krazen1211 "almost" claimed that someone was "insane" because he/she was a gay. Now, you are claiming that he did say woman was a "nutter" because of "her, uh,  'Bay Area lifestyle.'" After acknowledging that he "almost," but, didn't say what you claimed, why should I even bother to research your new claim? More to the point, if he actually said what you are now claiming, you wouldn't be hemming and hawing in response to a simple request that you produce the alleged quote.

I'm actually very interested in how one could conceivably interpret it differently in this case.

Again, if the alleged quote is as damning as you suggest, then why don't you simple quote him verbatim?  You seem intent on debating your spin rather than the facts. My basic assumption is that he said no such thing, and, that you have attempted to equate an comment on a politician's politics with an attack on her "lifestyle." Am I wrong?

If I were to say that you were a nutter because of your 'Alabama politics', even though most people from Alabama are entirely sane, I'm sure you'd rightly divine that I was calling you excessively socially authoritarian and possibly kind of racist.

When I read, "So-and-so almost said..." my typical response is to assume the person is putting words into someone else's mouth in order to appeal to the strawman fallacy. It is a particularly egregious appeal to the strawman fallacy precisely because the issuer of the strawman fallacy grants himself a giant out.

Oh, no, I'm not going to use an out here, don't you worry. I'm going to put my foot down. Krazen engaged in blatantly hateful dog-whistling at a sitting member of the United States Congress and it was clear in the context of the argument that he knew that he was doing so.

I don't know what is even meant by "blatantly hateful dog-whistling" is, and, I think you really need to think carefully about American culture. In general, politicians as a class are held to the same esteem by the public as lawyers, and used cars salemen [apologies to used-car salemen.] I don't see how you think that any particular Congresswoman should be exempt from the general disdain that the American people feel towards the institution simply because she is a doctrinaire liberal or happens to be a lesbian. I don't recall that same deference being extended to George W. Bush when he was a sitting President. Didn't Whoppie Goldberg say about him, "Remember, bush means p#ssy!" Did Whoppie Goldberg engage in "blatantly hateful dog-whistling," whatever that means?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'm sorry, I was assuming you weren't a lazy ass and would have some ability to interpret the thread in question after I specified it and to distinguish between the things I'm saying which haven't changed and your perception of what I've been saying which has changed for reasons I'm still working on fathoming. I shouldn't have hurt your feelings by assuming you were capable of doing such things, especially considering that you used our first sustained interaction on this forum to insult my mother, which I should have remembered the better to treat you with as much love and care as you deserve. I do apologize.

Dominating.

Kind was perfectly viable. Problem is that he knew in advance that those Madison nutters would vote for their fellow underperforming nutter.

The rest of the state is furious at Dane County's garbage; it will be great to see Baldwin lose by landslides in the 2 northern districts.

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

How funny! If you don't quite get why some voters cross over in the "interest of divided government", then you don't know much about electoral politics. I'm one who thinks that, more than anything else, the 2010 elections were a referendum on Pelosi; thats why Democrats did relatively well in the Senate compared to the House. Perhaps that 3% of voters voted for Feingold, but wanted to vote against Pelosi. Baldwin actually ran ahead of Kerry in 2004 and in 2000, she was not a very entrenched incumbent and her opponent was a string campaigner.

Martin Heinrich ran 9% behind Obama and even further behind Udall in 2008. But this year, he's leading in the same person he beat back then in the polls. So, I think to judge candidates based in such arbitrary margins doesn't give you the entire picture.

Finally, there actually are ways to debate without giving off such arrogant and condescending undertones. You should look into that....you'd actually probably win more people over to your side if you adopted such an approach.

Well, that is a very interesting theory.

This Pelosi linked underperformance does not seem to have affected Ron Kind in the neighboring district.

Ron Kind managed to get 54.8% in Eu Claire and 52.9% in La Crosse. Feingold managed 50.6%/50.3%, respectively.



But I suppose Ron Kind cannot be tarnished with the Bay Area brand because he doesn't have a Bay Area lifestyle with a Bay Area voting record. That is a massive 5 point swing between Baldwin and Kind.

As you can see, he has a fairly sane, if in my view flawed, analysis here, which he'd be more than capable of arguing for with some success and repute without resorting to personal calumnies. He does not choose to do so.

If it's all the same to you, I have considerably more important things to argue about and discuss from here on out, like the analysis of a Kalafina song I'm supposed to do for some Malaysian music critic.

[BigSkyBob]

As I suspect, Krazen1211 simply did not claim [Baldwin] was "insane" because she was a lesbian.
He called her ideology "insane," which is a charge leveled increasingly often in modern political discourse, especially towards those whom are further to the left or right.

The alleged case against Krazen1211:

Kind was perfectly viable. Problem is that he knew in advance that those Madison nutters would vote for their fellow underperforming nutter.

The rest of the state is furious at Dane County's garbage; it will be great to see Baldwin lose by landslides in the 2 northern districts.

Note how "Madison nutters" is clearly a reference to extreme liberalism, not sexual orientation.

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Again, his criticism is against the vandalism, terror threats, etc. "Bay Area voting record" is not a reference to sexual orientation inasmuch as Pelosi, who is heterosexual, is routinely tarred as the poster child for a "San Francisco Democrat."


I find your false accusations against Krazen1211 to be particularly disturbing. It is just stunningly intellectually dishonest to equate attacks on her liberalism with attacks on her sexual orientation. Surely, you accept that her ideology and record are fodder for criticism?

[asexual trans victimologist]

Why else would he have referenced her sexual orientation? I'm sure you hope that I would consider it to explain a lot about you if you somehow actually thought that human interactions and political discussions operated on formal logic, but I'm not buying it. Sorry.

[BigSkyBob]

Why else would he have referenced her sexual orientation? I'm sure you hope that I would consider it to explain a lot about you if you somehow actually thought that human interactions and political discussions operated on formal logic, but I'm not buying it. Sorry.

What we know for certain is what Krazen1211 did say: he thinks Baldwin is a "nutter" because she is far to the left. So, we know that he doesn't think she is a "nutter" because she is a lesbian. Baldwin stood for office as "an openly gay candidate." Surely, people other than Baldwin are entitled to note that fact without being vilified.

That seems to be exactly what you have done to Krazen1211.

[Senator Clarence]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Nathan- why do you feel the need to react so aggressively to BigSkyBob when he is politely arguing his points?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Nathan- why do you feel the need to react so aggressively to BigSkyBob when he is politely arguing his points?

You and I have apparently different definitions of politeness in this context, because I don't think he's at any point been at all polite. He also insulted my mother once, so I have difficulty putting up with him in general. So basically, it's a personal history between us plus me thinking that he's not polite so much as passive-aggressive.

[Senator Clarence]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Nathan- why do you feel the need to react so aggressively to BigSkyBob when he is politely arguing his points?

You and I have apparently different definitions of politeness in this context (which isn't necessarily a problem but we do seem to have distinct perceptions), because I don't think he's at any point been at all polite. He also insulted my mother once, so I have difficulty putting up with him in general.

I haven't seen that therefore I apologize....I've seen the page above and it seems BigSkyBob is reasonalbe and in the post I quoted, you attacked his level of education... something I would take offense to if that was your intention seeing as how I am not the most highly educated person myself

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Whether, or not, Krazen1211 has one, or two, reasons for disliking Baldwin is a matter of speculation. What is a matter of fact is that Krazen1211 stated he believed her to be a "nutter" because she is far to the left.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Nathan- why do you feel the need to react so aggressively to BigSkyBob when he is politely arguing his points?

You and I have apparently different definitions of politeness in this context (which isn't necessarily a problem but we do seem to have distinct perceptions), because I don't think he's at any point been at all polite. He also insulted my mother once, so I have difficulty putting up with him in general.

I haven't seen that therefore I apologize....I've seen the page above and it seems BigSkyBob is reasonalbe and in the post I quoted, you attacked his level of education... something I would take offense to if that was your intention seeing as how I am not the most highly educated person myself

Yeah, sorry about that. I freely admit that it's too easy for me as a somewhat privileged New England academic to get snobbish about things like that, particularly with people whom I already strongly dislike for other reasons.

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Whether, or not, Krazen1211 has one, or two, reasons for disliking Baldwin is a matter of speculation. What is a matter of fact is that Krazen1211 stated he believed her to be a "nutter" because she is far to the left.

If you're expecting me to refuse to speculate on the motives of somebody with a track record of hateful comments about gay people for, uh, making hateful comments about a gay person that mention the fact that she's gay, then I'm very sorry to disappoint you.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know who you're attempting to convince of what, but you're so insistent that of krazen's use of (themselves clearly disparaging) dysphemistic dog whistles about gay people is severable from the rest of his condescending and nasty invective that I'm beginning to think that contrary to my prior suppositions you may actually be genuinely in the dark as to how English prose works. There are formal elements of your composition that also point to this conclusion, to be quite frank. You're incredibly tiresome.

Nathan- why do you feel the need to react so aggressively to BigSkyBob when he is politely arguing his points?

You and I have apparently different definitions of politeness in this context, because I don't think he's at any point been at all polite. He also insulted my mother once, so I have difficulty putting up with him in general. So basically, it's a personal history between us plus me thinking that he's not polite so much as passive-aggressive.

Your accusation against me is cut from the same cloth as your accusation against Krazen1211. My statements about your mother presupposed that she was decent women and mother whom attempted to teach you proper morals and manners. You twisted that into an attack against her. You, also, mentioned the unfortunate fact that she was an attorney:-)

As to being personal: you stated as a matter of fact that the folks here whom are conservative "pitied" me. I stand behind my comments that that behavior on your part was an example of such training being ignored. You took that as an attack. Notice how playing the victim allows you gloss over your own actions?