Paesano's views and defense of them

quote:

---

IMHO, I don't think a post that disparages as "wacko" an opinion that may well represent a minority viewpoint at this forum, yet nevertheless was defended with evidence within the guidelines of the forum, really deserves consideration as "Post of the Month".

---

1) You really didn't address most of holmes' or my points regarding the justifications or evidence given by the Bush administration for the Iraq war.2) You especially didn't address the messages which totally debunked your claim that Kerry, and both holmes and I, were "Monday morning quarterbacking" with evidence of a pre-war speech that Kerry gave and holmes and my pre-war EvC posts.3) You never allowed yourself to even consider that you could be wrong, even when shown clear evidence that you were, and instead just buggered off.4) You aren't the only one on the evo side to do so; I have, when I've gotten into an argument with Holmes over some emotionally sensitive issue for me, just buggered off.I'm not proud of it, I still struggle with the temptation to do that occasionally, and sometimes I fail, but at least I am woman enough to admit it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-23-2005 06:24 PM

The topic does have a theme, doesn't it?Cheers,
A MooseAdded by edit - You can change the title by editing message 1.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2005 09:10 PM

Re your points:I recall discussing the issues with Holmes at length. We ended in substantial disagreement on many issues. However, I did not regard his opinions as "wacko" or characterize them as such.As to your points, I recall you repeatedly inviting me to view the fact that there was little evidence of a direct link between Iraq and the specific 9/11 incident, to be a substantial argument against the Iraq war.While I concede the point (that there was little evidence of a direct link with the specific incident) I do not regard it as an especially significant argument in the larger context of whether or not the Iraq war was necessary. I hold the opinion that there were other lines of evidence in favor of the view that the Iraq war was necessary.You made your case. I do not find it convincing. We've simply reached an impasse and further discussion is unlikely to be of interest, especially if it has begun to descend to the level of epithets such as "wacko".There was indeed some good information in your POTM candidate that I even agree with, making all the more decided my disappointment that it was tarnished by such invective.For the benefit of the administrators, I agree that this thread seems to lack general interest and I concur in any decision that it ought to be closed.

This brings up a point. Hey Moose, is there any way that we could have a topic where people could attack and argue the person as well as the position? We could call the thread The Peoples Court, or perhaps Point/Counterpoint. Personally, I would rename THIS thread and call it Everyone could use it to hash out their little feuds away from the flow of verbage.It would be our own little reality TV! We could watch each other hash out our innermost hangups. Or Not. What does anyone think? Schraf??This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-23-2005 01:22 AM

All I can say is that if you did not duck and run, you certainly made that impression.You definitely challenged my (and her) position and when credible evidence was returned, you left. You may not have said "wacko" but if I remember correctly, you were derisive. Monday morning quarterbacking is not something I like to have thrown at me when I've been consistent, and consistently correct, on a subject.If someone descended to a low level, it was you who did it first and then bucked.I honestly don't think schraf's nominated post was POTM material, she has written much better and gotten less credit. I do agree the uhhhh nomenclature used was not exactly high class, but your bucking it really seems a bit odd. The nominator did find it worthy and for reasons that made sense.Her point that evos do sometimes get knocked was correct... and in a way stood as a rebuttal to my own arguments that evos usually do cut each other slack.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I honestly don't think schraf's nominated post was POTM material, she has written much better and gotten less credit.

---

I sort of agree.It's kind of like when I was competing at horse shows a lot. I would feel like I rode a damn fine test in the ring but got a crap score, and other days I made a whole bunch of mistakes but the judge pinned me up at the top of the class.

To think about it, I wonder if most people feel like their best posts never get nominated, while their adequate or good but not important posts get the nomination?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's an interesting question.If I spent a couple of days writing and editing a given reply, my writing and presentation of ideas would be a lot more consistent. As it is, though, I mostly just write and post with very little editing, so I am delighted if anything ever is recognized at all.

quote:

---

Everyone could use it to hash out their little feuds away from the flow of verbage.

​

It would be our own little reality TV! We could watch each other hash out our innermost hangups. Or Not. What does anyone think? Schraf??

---

I think that's a REEEEEEEEELY bad idea for the health of the board.Tempting sometimes, to be sure, but not good long-term behavior choice.sorry, Lam.

I don't even know what thread you guys are talking about. Actually, this is my first time reading this thread. How did I get into this conversation?

I would RULE that topic.

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

I am rather astonished that this thread is still open. Is an evo with some conservative political views that unique ?