<As to Ruth's earnest little piece, I'd say it's quite one sided.>
Daniel: Thank you for finally comenting on that cherished Ruth article of mine, and for your in-depht analysis of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
< I see you haven't chosen to engage V on the subject of party affiliation, as in "Political party affiliation has little or nothing to do with values." Compared to your earnest statement: "Isn't it obvious to you that the decision to belong to a political party, or a religious group, should be based on your personal values, and not on how favorable it will be to your career?">
Thank you for your efforts to find my and V's statement on political party affiliation. I apologise for not engaging V on his statement. I will do it now : I believe V is wrong. We would not be talking about "conservatives" and "liberals" if personal values were not involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<The Democrats are all partisan, and the Republicans are engaged in an impartial search for truth and justice. If you wish.>
Thank you for trying to describe my thoughts in such an accurate way. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<As I said, you have picked up some substantial allies on that
point of view.>
Thank you for deciding for me whom I should associate with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<If you think they represent "the thread", that's your choice.>
Thank you, again, for trying to help me formulate my ideas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan,
Why should people bother answering your posts if you're going to show so little willingness to be fair, and systematically try to trash the reputation of people that do not share your views ?
Will your answer and defense be to show that other people have been unfair to you, and that it gives you a sacred right to act in the same way ?
How does a democracy work in these conditions ? |
