Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.
|
For the record, in my
first post on the editorial (after reading it), I wrote that "I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions."
But that is what some editorials do...jump to conclusions, w/o having all the facts, with the hope that it will be widely circulated and perpetuated and suddenly believed to be completely factual.
Quote:
|
No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.
|
My issue is when the (or any) opinion is presented as more than what it is (not you).
No apology necessary.
And no, I am not the "fresh" prince, just an old policy wonk..and cant claim to always be "cohesive" (unless you know washington double speak)
Quote:
|
If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.
|
I aspire to Merc's ignore list (j/k)..he threatened but came up short on the follow through.