Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I suppose when one is lacking the ability to show that an author has written an "idiotic" point, or lacks the ability to demonstrate that a website is a "nutjob" site, or is impotent an unable to reasonably counter the "lunatics" with logic that is so brilliant and irrefutable and beyond question, that individual has no choice but to act "childish" and flame those he doesn't agree with, as he is powerless to elevate himself into the areana where the art of criticism is framed in an adult manner.
Flame on Fyester, flame on. It is the most consistent aspect of your writing style. Thus is the flock of the modern newly converted right wing extremists, of which you are clearly feathered from.
I wasn't aware that one could "flame" an author who wasn't participating in the discussion. Are you suggesting that one or all of the group I mentioned might be lurking here. If so, then I wonder what they're doing in the chat area of trading site, and I sure hope they show themselves so we can have at it one on one. Heck, I'll take them all on.
The subject was msfe's posts. We were asked for opinions. I gave mine. I've previously responded to various of pieces by such authors in detail, or have presented countervailing views from other authors - depending on how interesting I thought the matters were, how much time I had, what seemed appropriate. I've seen you attacking msfe and others, sometimes foully, often insultingly and repetitiously. I don't recall your ever engaging the substance of any of the c&p's other than with blanket dimissals.
Your statements suggest that you either know very little about right wing extremists, the majority of whom hold views very different from mine, or that you are demonstrating another aspect of your customary hypocrisy - flaming me while pretending to deplore the practice, using a loaded term to argue by way of insults and generalized guilt by association rather than with logic or evidence. I challenge you to point to an "extreme" point of view that I've offered, or to give an example of an "extremist" whose views you believe are similar to mine. Until you do so, then I'll assume that anyone who has points of view different from yours, and who argues them tenaciously, must qualify as an extremist in your political dictionary.
We've spent a lot of time arguing about issues, and I'm offended that you discount my efforts so off-handedly. I wouldn't make a claim to "logic [that's] brilliant and irrefutable beyond question," but I've worked hard to be as precise and clear as I could, and to refer wherever possible to facts and evidence.
I'd really thought you'd gotten over the need to make every discussion a pissing contest, and were through with trying to make things personal between us.