Yes, Daniel, and it was in that first post of yours that you began to provoke Vaughn, as in:
>And we also know, at least according to Bill "Facts" Vaughn, that George Bush did not commit perjury. I have to apologize to Mr. Vaughn in advance for this stupid, moronic rant, throwing insults and flames into this perfectly legitimate conversation that Ken Starr has started up for us. It's just all this teeming hate and ignorance inside of me. We all know that Bill Clinton's alleged perjury, which I was willing to assume but now seems a bit of a stretch in legal terms, is the only "fact" that could possible matter here.<
You are certainly no saint, my friend. You started here with sarcastic personal insults and received it in kind. As soon as you did your Bill “Facts” Vaughn thing, you uttered ridicule and provoked Bill to hostility. Vaughn certainly could not view you as one who simply wanted to engage in constructive debate because you began to cast aspersions on his ability to present facts, attempting to make it appear he was chronically deficient. It is one thing to tell him he is not presenting the facts about a matter, and quite another to attach the deficiency to his person in the manner you did it. You drove the point home with this little tidbit:
>Uh huh. As Ronald Reagan said, Facts are stupid things. I prefer the Walsh branch of the Republican party to the Starr / Newt / Abrams / Vaughn branch, but I'm stupid.<
These, my friend, were all personal assaults, and so you started the bad blood between yourself and Vaughn.
As for JLA, his statement was certainly no direct personal attack. It was a very broad and even conditional statement. It certainly should not have caused you to assault him directly and personally by calling him a ‘totally independent pompous moralizer”. An equivalent statement to counter his insult would have been “If anyone supports Starr they need a sanity check"” But you did not cast the broad conditional aspersion, you cast a direct assault, and so you began the bad blood between you and JLA.
As for my shoving it, I already have. I hope you're ok.
I am not interested in further dialog with you, Daniel. But I will say this in parting: You are wrong to the core to accuse others of the very same thing that you have done from the beginning. This is hypocritical. You have no excuse for it, and should be man enough to apologize before you continue here. If you do not apologize, I will be forced to consider you unworthy of my attention. You may bring up my wrongs as frequently as you wish. No doubt I have erred even presently. I will admit it if I have. Indeed, if I have presently wronged anyone here, I do sincerely apologize. It is quite easy to lose oneself amidst these confrontations and so I ask your forgiveness. I will try harder.
None of my weaknesses will ever excuse your certifiable childishness and direct abusiveness, Daniel. Apologize, and return to the world of respectability.
Good day, sir, and get on with your (fill in the blank) life. (grin) |
