Argue? Nah, but I guess if you perceive highlighting areas of disagreement as such, so be it. As for not calling you Babs, I don't recall your raising such as fuss over it, but then, I tend to skip pleasantries in people's posts and get to the substantive stuff, if there is any. ggg. Agreed, no more Babs.
You label my views "idiotic and juvenile." Why, because they don't jive with yours? Seems a rather transparent ploy to avoid providing a reasoned defense relative to your own views. Rather, you pursue a circuitous route that employs the very behavior your erroneously assign to me, to wit, "idiotic and juvenile."
And to disabuse you and your cohorts of another of your silly notions, I have made money off of Tava on more than one occasion, and I anticipate continuing to do so in the future. As far as I am concerned, Tava isn't even the issue.
As for the balance of your response, what the hell are you getting on about? Old Bill's accusations against Tava = freedom of the press? Say what?! Re case law, I assume that you are able to provide specific references and explanations as to how this applies here?
Barbara, I wasn't trying to turn this into an intellectual exercise (ah, yet more ammunition, eh? ggg), and if you would prefer to respond on an emotional level, that's certainly your prerogative. I don't take issue with you nor your political beliefs, whatever they may be. Nevertheless, I am willing to continue to engage if you feel so inclined. ggg. |
