I still stand by what I said. The fact that you completely
passed on what LB said because it was not up to your
expressed standard of "interesting". IMO, you could have
made your point & commented on LB's extremely pertinent
point. Instead, you expressed that LB's point was less
interesting than yours, then you ignored what LB said
completely. That is precisely what I found interesting.
Your point was regarding a question alluding that PC was
allowing Muslims to immigrate to the US. LB's point was a
stark condemnation of PC because it may have prevented us
from stopping 9/11 (profiling) & this critical issue may
not be addressed as part of the 9/11 investigation.
FWIW, LB said, "The ACLU would have sued, and Kennedy's
staff would have had their jobs if they had rejected them.
They knew that, and went by the rules. This is being
covered up by the 911 committee. I caught part of one
hearing where the 911's committee Lawyer was savaging the
FAA guy for not catching them. The guy replied, "It was
illegal to 'profile' them." The 911 Lawyer didn't say one
word in response."
Message 19820302
And yes, I did say, "you managed to find that not
interesting". I wasn't quoting you. You completely ignored
LB's point, so it certainly was not of much, if any,
interest to you - so that's how I framed it. Perhaps I
should have said, 'you managed to find LB's point less
interesting than yours, so much so that it wasn't worthy
of any comment from you'.
And I still do find that quite interesting. |
