Hmmm. I just posted twice on GWB thinking I was over here. I'm now going to try to switch that conversation to this thread! Sorry!
But first, look what I found! This reference is clearly about me. I called you an "arch conservative," not by name, but by reference to your (surprising, to me) very negative characterization of hunters. The stereotype of anti-hunter is liberal, and of pro-hunter is conservative.
The reason I mentioned your being a conservation, I stated:
Three of the posts attacking Grainne's position used the word "liberal" with which to insult her.
I pointed out that a conservative was her defender. An apt point, imo.
The "person" was talking about me while I sat there watching.
Actually, I try hard to avoid making hostile third party remarks about people. I've written many PM's to people explaining that I wouldn't respond publicly for that reason. (I am third-party trashed quite routinely.)
I'm guessing that you consider "arch conservative" a hostile crack. I now confess something. I thought "arch" meant something like "strongly typical, strongly committed, super-, echt, etc."
In fact, it seems to mean, according to dictionary.com, "condescending." Whoa! I love this!
I can't wait until my husband comes downstairs so I can quiz him! Believe me, I'll be dining out on this misapprehension, because I'm guessing lots of people are laboring under it.
However:
1) I believe calling you a conservative, though in that context not an "arch" one, it turns out, was entirely justified. It made the point that the three posts characterizing Grainne's position as "liberal" weren't unassailable, and I did not mean it as an insult.
2) I can see why you would take exception to being called a "condescending" conservative, which is what I did, in ignorance of the true meaning of "arch," but I have to say, to you directly, that in one of the posts I am going to paste on Feelies I use that very word, and the context will explain why I feel it justified.
3) You write, The subject of my own post that was indirectly referred to did not exemplify "arch-conservatism," but if anything just the opposite. Again: that was why I posted it. I believe that no one but me objected to Grainne's view being called, by three posters, "liberal," and your reply, coming from a conservative, made a good point.
Re "arch": I apologize for what, because I misunderstood the meaning of the word, turned out to be a third-party characterization to which you take objection. I retroactively would like to change that to just "conservative."
The "arch" characterization of your posts (to me, at least; I see no others of them) will be made directly to you!
Sometime I'll comment, separately, on your views on hunters. |
