Today I voted

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

You remember incorrectly. I certainly wasn't a smarmy jerk..and certainly didn't attempt to insult anyone like you just did. So, I would say the jerk would be you good sir.

I neither said you were smarmy, nor a jerk. I said you sounded like it when you made your observation.

ETA: ah yes, now I remember...that was the "I know you're going to discount my post because you're all a bunch of hippies" post... [yes I'm paraphrasing]

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I neither said you were smarmy, nor a jerk. I said you sounded like it when you made your observation.

ETA: ah yes, now I remember...that was the "I know you're going to discount my post because you're all a bunch of hippies" post... [yes I'm paraphrasing]

Perhaps he doesn’t like the smell of our patchouli…

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I neither said you were smarmy, nor a jerk. I said you sounded like it when you made your observation.

Ah yes, I did notice that. A subtle distinction indeed. A fine political technique when you really want to insult someone, but want a way to deny it so as not to seem that you are the type to result to personal insults in the first place.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

Ah yes, I did notice that. A subtle distinction indeed. A fine political technique when you really want to insult someone, but want a way to deny it so as not to seem that you are the type to result to personal insults in the first place.

And citing a distorted version of something that happened months ago, hoping no one would be able to recall the reality is a fine technique for setting oneself up as an innocent vitim of some non-existent persecution.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And citing a distorted version of something that happened months ago, hoping no one would be able to recall the reality is a fine technique for setting oneself up as an innocent vitim of some non-existent persecution.

Actually, I posted the link to the article myself (as did you I later realized). I think its all there in black and white and clearly stand by my original assertion. Of course your distorting of my actual words didn't help, but you did correct that after you likely realized someone would search for the original thread and post it.

I still fail to see what of my comments, however distorted the manner in which they were interpreted, necessitated name calling in what would have been a civilized debate.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

Actually, I posted the link to the article myself (as did you I later realized). I think its all there in black and white and clearly stand by my original assertion. Of course your distorting of my actual words didn't help, but you did correct that after you likely realized someone would search for the original thread and post it.

I still fail to see what of my comments, however distorted the manner in which they were interpreted, necessitated name calling in what would have been a civilized debate.

First off, I immediately said I was paraphrasing, never claimed it was a direct quote. Secondly, you claimed you were "chastized" for saying the board leaned left when, in fact, you were "chastized" (if you can call responding to dry humor with dry humor "chastizing") for starting out a post with a dismissive statement. In that whole thread, I never once disagreed with the statement that this board leans liberal. I disagreed with the presumption that becuase we lean liberal we can't have a civilized debate.

As before, I don't really care, but I didn't feel like letting your revisionist history version of what happened sit out there without speaking up. And yes, how you said it sounded smarmy and jerky. I know you're not a jerk, so I ain't calling you one. But just because someone'e my friend doesn't mean I won't point out when they say something rude.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

First off, I immediately said I was paraphrasing, never claimed it was a direct quote...

Ok, I can't do much more of this as email, phone calls, meetings and the like are piling up. I don't know how all of you with 7,000 some-odd posts do it, but I bow before you. Your comment was that I was presenting revisionist history and something about setting myself up as some innocent victom of something blah blah.... I don't think anyone actually believes that that is what I was trying to do. Hell I don't think you actually believe that either. I was simply making an observation and a joke. Apologies again for always trying to bring a little light-heartedness to life on this board.

In terms of what I was chastized for earlier, while YOU specifically were admonishing me for some sort of perceived smarminess (I don't believe that is actually the correct use of that word, but I do agree with GC that it is a pretty awesome word for the day) which wasn't actually present, others were debating the idea that this board in any way leans left. And THAT was the basis of my comment in this thread.

Going back to the topic a few months back, it was that which surprised the hell out of me as I assumed that to be a given. When you read the political threads it is quite clear that there is more weight on one side than the other (I didn't start the whole Blue Red stuff, so don't blame me for breaking it down to a two party issue). Conservative comments seem to be attacked quite quickly while comments regarding the current presidential administration as evil or imperialistic aren't given a second thought. It's not rocket science.

Are people more complex than Red or Blue? Uhh, yeah, I think that was the point I was trying to make in my long post earlier in the thread that I'm sure interested no one. I am obviously conservative, but not a bush supporter nor a republican anymore. But just because I don't support him, doesn't mean that I think he is the antichrist.

In other words, I agree with KevyBaby's earlier comments.