posted
In fact, after consideration, I still don't know what Dag was actually trying to say. Dag, what was your point when you posted it and how do you think what you did would get it across?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not only that, but one of the parts of the article you quoted directly referenced supporting Bush because of the antics of these people.
No, it referenced other people being turned off by the excessive demonization of Bush. It did not say it was a reason to support Bush. It said that the demonization was drowning out the case against Bush.
And Squick, the last quoted paragraph up to the dash pretty much sums it up: "The demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty if it hasn't already. It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place. It squeezes the middle, virtually forcing moderates to pick which bunch of nuts they're going to join. It's hard to know whom to loathe more --"
Clearly, I've had trouble explaining this when I've taken it on here. The article, taken as a whole, explains the point. If I could sum it up myself, I wouldn't have needed to post this article.
Interestingly, when I have pointed out excesses by conservatives on this board, I have usually gotten no reply. When I've pointed them out by liberals, even on issues I agree with them on, I've usually gotten static.
posted
Dag, I'm in no way keeping you from continuing productive discussion on this topic. The main non-productive thing discussed on this thread was your character and mine, and, if you notice, I'm much more concerned about the principles involved than with this.
You posted an atricle with no elaboration. I made an inference that was apparently incorrect, but I said a heck of a lot of other things too. If my inference was incorrect, I wasn't then talking about you, although there are plenty of people who would do exactly as you did for the motives I described. The points that I made, although perhaps not applicable to you, are valid in a more general case and are something that I am concerned about. If you were doing what I suspected you were doing, than I disagree with you. If you weren't then my perspective was faulty and I likely don't disagree with you at all. Either way, I am much more interested in talking about this problem in American politics and what can/should be done about it than our respective characters.
A side issue that also came up was one of communication. I frankly think that you did not do a good job of communicating and that the methods you used are intrinsically poor in terms of clear communication. This is also something we could talk about and have a productive discussion on.
If you want to, we can even discussion our impressions of each other and, if we keep the discussion within certain bounds, I'm sure that we could both profit from it. However, I don't think that what has been going on here is serving any productive purpose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
