Every article and every commentator must be looked
at from the POV of their particular bias or agenda.
That was the point I was making here.
Do you honestly believe that I don't understand that premise?
Actually, I do..
You've posted plenty of bile about Limbaugh and
others of his stripe and spoken adoringly of Ivins
and those like her.
Rarely do I post articles from Ivins and rarely do I criticize Limbaugh mainly because I think he is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme things. However, I must admit his hypocrisy is starting to smell up the joint.
That's your partisanship showing. It would be helpful
to you to evaluate these so called "pundits" from a
more critical perspective rather than wholeheartedly
swallowing their position whole if it jibes with
your own predisposition.
Like I've said before, you are coming to conclusions with very little data. You've posted on this board....for what? two weeks? If you had been here longer, you would understand that the articles I post reflect my position and not the other way around
well, duh again, Ted. The bold-faced portion of your response above was my point to you in
our last go-around.
However, just a couple of days ago, you sent me this
post:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=19798612
In that post you said:
I never once said that........you've interpreted an article that I posted as saying that. And I might out that that's your extrapolation.......in truth, the article never once called the US terrorists.
BTW, just for the record, I post articles that both support my views as well take a very different position from my views.
It didn't take long to figure you out actually,
though it does seem that you're a bit confused
about your own posting record.<g>
While I enjoyed your pseudo-psychological analysis
and love the fact that you're a man in touch with your
emotions, I haven't the time to play with you any more
today.
and, no, I've never signed anything "matt" and
haven't a clue who that is.
Have a nice w/e. |
