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.
Flaming is another term for attacking a person, and not their position.
By labeling anyone "idiot" "loony" "nutjob" "childish" etc. you are suggesting that their present behavior, or their opinions expressed are due to a static condition of being a lunatic, an idiot, a child, etc.
You have a habit of not addressing the issue, but labeling the person who brings forth the issue.
This is flaming someone, and is a tactic used by both the left and right, but most often by the right wingers when they lack the ability to make an argument strong enough to defeat the opinions of an political opponent concerning an issue at hand, so they resort to denouncing the person who espouses the idea.....thinking if they create the impression that a person is an idiot or a lunatic, then all their thinking that follows must be idiotic or lunacy.
In logical argumentation, it is called an ad hominem attack, and I am not the first person in this forum who has brought your techniques of employing ad hominem and flaming tactics to your attention.
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 dismissals.
You expressed your opinions in an ad hominem manner, not providing an argument for those opinions.
You can focus on what I do, but is that done to say what you do is right, because I do it too? Is this just another means of justification or rationalization?
Is this your way of saying that you are not a principled man, but simply one who follows the behavior of others, and justifies it on the basis of what others do?
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.
Typical tactic, focus on someone else's behavior to dodge the question.
Extreme is a relative term. In today's political climate, moderates are viewed as extremists from the far right perspective. My perspective on extreme is one who denies evidence, or the validity of evidence in order to maintain their opinion, which I believe I have seen you do when it comes to the issue of the war and justification of it in spite of questions of the reasons given by Bush and company for the urgent need to have a war.
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.
You are offended? Good. I imagine those who run the web-sites you term loony and nutjobs are offended at your comments as well.
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.
I'd really though you'd gotten over the need to use inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks.
