Huntsman - Finally!

[Purple Fencer]

That's how this thread started. But, now Huntsman is out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80F03G20120116

Perhaps the only Republican that could really give Obama a good run for the moderate and independent voters, and the only Republican to come out of this un-sullied by the mud slinging and dirt-digging of the primary process.

Are the Republicans passing up a strong Presidential nominee out of blind ideology and hatred of compromise? And more importantly, are they scuttling their chances to win the race by dropping their single sane, intelligent, un-dirtied, moderate nominee in exchange for a field of a-holes and flip-floppers?

The answer? A resounding yes.

[Inquartata]

No, that's attacking them by with lies about their policies and beliefs using insult words, by accusing people of Godless, socialist, job-destroying, appeasers who are apologizing for America and trying to destroy it while waging class warfare.

I fail to see how attacking "policies and beliefs"---and it's only your own biased opinion that the attacks are "lies"---is the same as attacks on the integrity and/or intelligence of the individuals supporting them.

I oppose most of what Obama is about and is trying to do. I do so because I believe that his policies and beliefs are wrong, NOT because I believe he is stupid or cynically trying to destroy the country for his own selfish ends. The latter I leave to Democrats, who cannot content themselves with opposing only the policies and beliefs of, say, Bush, without resorting to imputations of dimwittedness and outright wickedness.

I think Obama is deluded. However, I think that he is sincere in his worldview. The average Democrat, in my experience, cannot and will not say the same of most Republican leaders---and the more potent they believe the latter to be, the more their lips curl with contempt for their personal circumstances. Because after all, policies and beliefs which deviate from those which form the "progressive" complex are so clearly wrong that no honest, sane person could possibly hold them sincerely. It must be a cynical stance; it must arise from turpitude, or mental defect, or deliberate attempt to frustrate the Right and Just. It must not just be wrong, but bad.

That's as reprehensible as lefties accusing Bush of being a fascist - neither is acceptable. Your claim that conservative attacks aren't accusations of deliberate baseness is absurd.

Show me something other than criticism of policy and belief by the conservative bloc. Show me someone in authority saying that Obama only does things because it advances the wealth of his cronies. Show me someone doing what Democrats routinely do: Attributing what he has done to stupidity or personal corruption. Otherwise, it's nothing like the same thing.

Or accusing Obama or hating white people, or his wife being hated for being "uppity" (the last sentence citing Rush). Open racism.

Oh, yes, I forgot: Only white people can be racist---or at least only they may be accused of it. Only white people can hate. Only white people can hold despicable views which they MUST hold even if they never actually express them, because one political operative, thirty years ago, claimed that racism is just "coded" and concealed in those cases. That's pretty much the whole foundation of your position here, correct? One paragraph by one man talking about a time a decade before that?

BTW, I don't know where you get the idea that Rush Limbaugh=conservatism. That's like saying Michael Moore=liberalism. People who make their livelihoods saying wild, provocative things do not define the political movements with which they align themselves.

Indicating that neither you nor your friends understand what socialism is, or what Obama is doing, or both.

Sure. I know you'd prefer to define your way out of the term, by twisting it into a narrow, superspecialized concept applicable only to Cuba and North Korea, and possibly China. It isn't on, though. There is another definition than the Marxist-Leninist one, and these days it's the primary definition.

Here's one good summary:

" a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

policy or practice based on the polical and economic theory of socialism.

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy."

And note that last sentence. It isn't mine; the definition comes from the Oxford American Dictionary. And the last two words mark their own point: There are many forms of socialism. So again, crossing your arms and smiling because what Obama advocates doesn't match some single idealized version which exists in your favorite political textbook ( or your friends' ) point for point simply isn't getting you anywhere with anyone who isn't already a "fellow traveler".

As an actual, dues paying member of the Socialist Party of America I'm really annoyed when people call Obama (or any Democrat) a sociailist. Like nails on a goddamn chalk board.

As I said to Jeff above, it's too bad that you feel that your Party should get to define a political and economic system which long predates it, did not originate with it and is as diverse in its variants as capitalism is. It's too bad that it irks you that people insist upon using definitions other than the one you prefer. But those other definitions have been around a good long time, and are just as valid as whichever one you favor.

Fortunately, accuracy and truth---and the historical record---are not measured by the yardstick of how much personal annoyance they inflict.

It's clear they had an agenda to push, and twisted and distorted the facts to further that agenda.

I'm not sure you completely understand the meaning of the word "clear".

So, no. Bush started the wars (justified or not), so he gets credit for the cost.

Looking forward to your tenacious and determined carping about Obama over the coming dust-up with Iran. I'm sure you'll be blaming him for decades to come for it, and bringing it up at every opportunity.

Heck, maybe you'll even call him a douchebag then...

I actually think the Pauline (Rand too) oposition to the Civil Rights Act is a bit more complicated and shouldn't be seen as an attitude on race per se. It's pretty consistent with libertarianism that having (especially federal) laws to prohibit discrimination is less desirable than market forces and changing socital attitudes driving integration. I think one can make the argument that racial discrimination is wrong and at the same time federal laws prohibiting it being wrong as well.

I don't agree with this, but I do think a person can oppose the CRA without it necessarily being a marker for racist attitudes. Similarly opposition to drug laws does not equal advocating their use.

I also agree that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought given the general global trend towards emancipation without contesting a bitter and bloody war. Brazil managed it only a short while later than our Civil War and they had a far higher percentage of their population enslaved than than the US did.
[/QUOTE]

Apparently in some regards even committed socialists ( however self-defined ) are more intellectually enlightened on some hot-button issues than their supposedly less extreme brethren.

Anyway, yes, pretty much that. The Civil War IMO was not so much fought between competing moralities on the rectitude of slavery as between competing economic interests. And events just got away from both sides.

Although I must confess that I harbor a certain heterodoxy of feeling on the matter of whether it's justified to hasten the inevitable end of an obvious ongoing injustice or oppression by military means, especially within one's own country. For the sake of consistency I really should argue that the elimination of slavery should have been left to the impersonal forces of history and economics, but I just can't muster much fervor for the idea personally. ( Doubtless it would be easier were we not so far removed from the immediate memory of the effects of the War. )

I'm not sure that I agree with Jeff's estimates of the strength and perdurability of the institution here, but I can't dissent too much from his belief that acting to hurry the process along was on balance a good thing for us to have done...

Are the Republicans passing up a strong Presidential nominee out of blind ideology and hatred of compromise? And more importantly, are they scuttling their chances to win the race by dropping their single sane, intelligent, un-dirtied, moderate nominee in exchange for a field of a-holes and flip-floppers?

You mean the way the Democrats did with Bill Richardson four years ago?

I think rather that it has everything to do with the way our system is set up and with a fairly hard-headed calculus of who is seen as having the best chance to win the general election. No one man can capture every Republican constituency. The candidate will be he who by general agreement has the best chance of capturing the most of them...

[the ancient one]

That dog won't hunt.

[OROD]

Show me something other than criticism of policy and belief by the conservative bloc. Show me someone in authority saying that Obama only does things because it advances the wealth of his cronies. Show me someone doing what Democrats routinely do: Attributing what he has done to stupidity or personal corruption. Otherwise, it's nothing like the same thing.

Are you really this ignorant?

How about Rush Limbaugh accusing Obama of intentionally trying to destroy the economy? "President Obama and the Democrats are destroying the U.S. economy. They are purposely doing it"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907240001

Or Sean Hannity attacking his intelligence and how he got into college? I mean, when he's not calling him "the anointed one".

"I Don't Think He's That Smart"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_941629.html

How about Newt Gingrich calling Obama incompetent? "Barack Obama is so radical and at the same time so incompetent..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNovgodO-I

Donald Trump accusing Obama of illegally becoming President: "He's pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFbN_p9QuBw

Or, Michele Bachmann attacking Obama by attacking his family? "I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who've been allowed to stay in this country despite the fact that they're illegal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGVlC8krlZg

Is it a problem that Rick Perry attacks Obama for conducting a "War on Religion" when nothing of the sort exists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

How about the rest of Republicans? 24% believe Obama wants the terrorists to win. What???

* 63% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a socialist.
* 39% of Republicans believe he should be impeached.
* 36% believe he was not born in the United States (22% are not sure)
* 31% believe he is “a racist who hates White people”
* 24% believe President Obama “wants the terrorists to win” (33% are not sure)
* 23% say they want their state to secede from the Union.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ainstream.html

Do I really need to go on? Do I need to point out the hostile and racist comments from the Tea Party? Do I really need to dig up stuff from Glenn Beck? Seriously, that wouldnt even be sporting. Likewise, I could write a entire book on just Fox News and their non-stop lie/smear campaign against Obama and the Democrats.

[Inquartata]

Are you really this ignorant?

Are you? If you think pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity are "the conservative bloc" or "in authority", I guess you must be, huh?

Nor do the "examples" from them even meet the criteria I mentioned:

How about Rush Limbaugh accusing Obama of intentionally trying to destroy the economy?

Is that to enrich cronies, or for reasons of personal corruption or stupidity? Or was the implication that Obama was doing it in order to advance a socialist agenda?

Do you actually understand the distinction we're talking about?

How about Newt Gingrich calling Obama incompetent?

So in your world you can't actually accuse an incompetent person of incompetency without it being---

Sigh. And this from the guy who thinks "douchebag" is legitimate discourse...

Donald Trump

Seriously?

Or, Michele Bachmann attacking Obama by attacking his family? "I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who've been allowed to stay in this country despite the fact that they're illegal"

Are they here illegally?

Is it a problem that Rick Perry attacks Obama for conducting a "War on Religion" when nothing of the sort exists?

Gee, you started out OK, and then you added your own little personal-belief codicil to the question. Facepalm.

How about the rest of Republicans? 24% believe Obama wants the terrorists to win.

The Daily Beast. Ahahahahaha!

Do I really need to go on?

If the above was your idea of sufficient, then yes, yes you do...

[cathy a former fencer]

I like Newt myself, but then we have Obama. I like both.

[jeff]

I fail to see how attacking "policies and beliefs"---and it's only your own biased opinion that the attacks are "lies"---is the same as attacks on the integrity and/or intelligence of the individuals supporting them.

I've said why they are lies, with factual detail. Your pointed ignoring evidence isn't equivalent to it not having been presented.

I oppose most of what Obama is about and is trying to do. I do so because I believe that his policies and beliefs are wrong, NOT because I believe he is stupid or cynically trying to destroy the country for his own selfish ends. The latter I leave to Democrats, who cannot content themselves with opposing only the policies and beliefs of, say, Bush, without resorting to imputations of dimwittedness and outright wickedness.

Ah, so your proof that conservatives don't resort to imputations of dimwittedness and outright wickedness is to explicitly indulge in them with an ad. hom. on Democrats, thus contradicting yourself right away. Well, that didn't take much time.

I think Obama is deluded. However, I think that he is sincere in his worldview. The average Democrat, in my experience, cannot and will not say the same of most Republican leaders---and the more potent they believe the latter to be, the more their lips curl with contempt for their personal circumstances.

As evidenced by all the posts on this board where your interlocutors have said those names all the time. You're thinking of Voldemort, not real life.

Because after all, policies and beliefs which deviate from those which form the "progressive" complex are so clearly wrong that no honest, sane person could possibly hold them sincerely. It must be a cynical stance; it must arise from turpitude, or mental defect, or deliberate attempt to frustrate the Right and Just. It must not just be wrong, but bad.

A stance that nobody here has taken, and a gross representation of what progressives actually think - but a pretty fair representation in mirror image of what you say. Gosh.

Show me something other than criticism of policy and belief by the conservative bloc. Show me someone in authority saying that Obama only does things because it advances the wealth of his cronies. Show me someone doing what Democrats routinely do: Attributing what he has done to stupidity or personal corruption. Otherwise, it's nothing like the same thing.

I refuse, and I'll tell you why.

Over the many arguments we've conducted, you've often demanded "show me". When I did just that, you either denied factual evidence, or simply refused to further post (which, I suppose is a positive outcome) - your classic "running off the piste." Examples: You said "show me" when you claimed without evidence that no school taught Keynesian theory other than as a relict, and I said otherwise. When I found proof showing you wrong (a humble one-house red brick school called Princeton University) you engaged in specious doubletalk and another ad. hom. to cover up that you had just pulled that nonsensical claim out of your ass. When we had a long argument about conservatives and racism (we'll come back to that in a minute) you demanded "show me" about Buckley supporting white supremacism, which you insisted never happened. When I found his actual quote you simply disappeared. A mensch would have said "I was misinformed" but that's the kind of admission you've proven yourself to be incapable of making. On several occasions you said "show me where I said that" where "that" was some statement or another, and when I find the exact post with your words you wouldn't acknowledge that either. So, don't bother demanding "show me", because I see no profit in finding hard evidence you'll ignore or play games with.

You've already started games by trying to dictate the terms of what smear is valid or invalid target. In politics, a smear is a smear, and the tactic is to throw as many of them as you can and see which sticks. The usual thing is that smears that fit a "narrative" have a better chance of sticking. Bush 43 was inarticulate, so calling him stupid stuck. Obama has a reputation for being smart, so attacks that he's stupid are less effective than calling him a socialist who hates America. Since he's from Chicago, he's been subject to accusations of "Chicago style corruption" by a good number of Republican officials. So there's an example of what you demand. But I won't show you. Google it yourself.

You know, we were arguing that very point about dishonest claims a few years ago, and we came to an agreement that we should not smear people with labels we know don't apply. I'm disappointed but unsurprised to see you renege.

But don't ask me to "show you" where you said that. That boat has sailed. You know full well that conservatives, including the candidates, call Obama socialist, and you know for what purpose. It's a vile lie, just as it was to call Bush a fascist. At one time you seemed to get that.

I see above that OROD answered the "show me" with exactly what you demanded, and you responded as you always do. Plus ca change... (oh, I mustn't be a real American because I used some French words. Me, Kerry, and Romney)

Oh, yes, I forgot: Only white people can be racist---or at least only they may be accused of it. Only white people can hate. Only white people can hold despicable views which they MUST hold even if they never actually express them, because one political operative, thirty years ago, claimed that racism is just "coded" and concealed in those cases. That's pretty much the whole foundation of your position here, correct? One paragraph by one man talking about a time a decade before that?

Gosh, I would be in real trouble if that was the argument I was making. Wow - your sarcasm sure has demolished a ridiculous claim that nobody made, and surely nobody believes. Such logic you wield.

But this is just an example of one of your tricks: changing the subject while inserting a misrepresentation. I imagine you refer to our Lee Atwater arguments, but you misrepresent it. It's not just "one operative", it's one who was central to a presidential campaign, describing racial tactics that he used successfully, and have continued to be used to the current day, and is widely documented and discussed by political scientists, journalists, and the politicians themselves. (Mind you - you insisted that what Atwater was saying in clear words wasn't what he was actually saying) Another example is the smearing endured by McCain in the 2000 primary campaign, about a "black daughter." Good examples of this can be found this week, due to comments by Gingrich. That's the misrepresentation part - the "one political operative" describing events from the days of yore.

The "changing the subject" part is that your attempt to drive the conversation away from the fact that prominent and influential conservatives have used what is essentially hate speech. The bits about Obama having a deep-seated hatred for white people, or hating America because of his Kenyan father (Gingrich signed up for that). Or the ugly words about Michelle Obama. You would much rather derail any conversation that points to such shameful behavior with a distraction, than deal with these ugly facts. I call for praise Sen. McCain's principled rejection of this kind of argument, even contradicting a voter who repeated this junk. Cranky old SOB has his moments.

BTW, I don't know where you get the idea that Rush Limbaugh=conservatism. That's like saying Michael Moore=liberalism. People who make their livelihoods saying wild, provocative things do not define the political movements with which they align themselves.

Rush!=conservatism (read that as "not equal"), but is an influential part of conservatism, to the extent that Republican officeholders have had to curry favor with him and even apologize on-air if they didn't toe the line. That Rush is a bigot does not in the least imply that all conservatives are bigots, but it does say that there are bigots among conservatives because he is both. Add Beck to that, of course. I can express that in formula notation if you need it. If Moore was as powerful and mean as Rush is, I would be just as dismayed.

I anticipate a 10K limit so this is a good split-point.

[cathy a former fencer]

I know, I read the same article, how can Mitt be 'attacked' for speaking French? I think it's so absurd. I like Mitt as well; I also like the French language, havin studied it in High School. only a bit though. We owe the French alot I think. We like their foods, their wines, and we visit their country. He could be a real asset in speaking with people from France, Sierre Leone, Canada etc.

[jeff]

Sure. I know you'd prefer to define your way out of the term, by twisting it into a narrow, superspecialized concept applicable only to Cuba and North Korea, and possibly China. It isn't on, though. There is another definition than the Marxist-Leninist one, and these days it's the primary definition.

Here's one good summary:

" a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

policy or practice based on the polical and economic theory of socialism.

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy."

And note that last sentence. It isn't mine; the definition comes from the Oxford American Dictionary. And the last two words mark their own point: There are many forms of socialism. So again, crossing your arms and smiling because what Obama advocates doesn't match some single idealized version which exists in your favorite political textbook ( or your friends' ) point for point simply isn't getting you anywhere with anyone who isn't already a "fellow traveler".

First, you say "ah hah! you want to define you way out of it!" and then - you cite a dictionary to define your way out of it by twisting it into a narrow, superspecialized concept applicable only to - no country in existence. Maybe Somalia. It doesn't seem to actually be workable outside the sheltered groves of academy.

Such irony.

Second, you fail to understand the summary (Which is from where? Is the whole thing from your dictionary, or just that sentence? Show me. Let's say for argument sake that the summary is adequate. It describes attributes that pertain to socialism but doesn't say they are exclusive to socialism. There are other theories of politics and economics that reject "untrammeled workings" of the market, yet are not socialism. The ubiquitous and non-socialist Keynes being a good example. Indeed, any school of economic and political thought other than purist free market economics. You're like a hard-core Marxist saying that anything other than pure Marx-Lenin-Mao thought is a running dog lackey capitalist roader. Absurd, but revealing.

You've fallen into the fallacy of saying things that have some characteristic in common are the same thing. That puts you in the same boat as PETA with "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" form of equivalence. In other words: illogical nonsense. I recommend you take a remedial course in logic, rhetoric, or (a stretch) set theory so you can learn the distinction between sets having some elements in common (A∩B != Ø) and being the same. Or logic of inference.

Saying that socialist parties arise from social democracy doesn't mean that moderate politicians who want universal healthcare are socialist. I suspect that distinction is lost on you, alas. Even Hayek thought there was no reason for the state to not help people that way (See Road to Serfdom - There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. Blatant Socialist!!! I suppose that he also might not have preferred a system in which Mitt Romney (worth a few hundred million bucks) would say he has an effective tax rate of 15%, under half that of 99.5% of the population. But that's just a guess)


Third: your summary shows why the claim that Obama is a socialist is a lie: he does not advocate the government owning the means of production, and he doesn't support a transitional state on his march to the "overthrow of capitalism". He continued Bush's policy to save the banks, the epitome of an anti-socialist, Bagehot policy to preserve the banks during financial crisis. Some socialist - the guy who saved the banks and financial system and thereby avoided Great Depression 2.0!

That's why I said that accusations that he's a socialist are ignorant or liars (or being merely sloppy thinking). Right along with accusation that he's the appeaser (what, the guy who directed Bin Laden being taken out?), and apologizer (confusing him with Condi's remarks about our policies. Are you saying "they all look the same"?), or incompetent (you're thinking of the guy before him who made the mess). (Here, read Andrew Sullivan. Maybe you'll learn something:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html )

Your use of "fellow traveller" is quite revealing - because that was the McCarthyite expression for somebody hanging out with Commies. Channelling old Joe? What more clear an indication that the who purpose of this exercise is to smear people as being part of the Red Menace. Your intention is obvious.

But this is a game that anyone can play. Once Wikipedia is working on the Intertubes again, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

What shall we find there:
* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
* "Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
* "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
* "Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Wow, several of those indeed apply to today's conservatives! There's a lot more I can cherry pick if necessary. I could go on for pages showing that conservatism is the same thing as fascism!

No it isn't. Really. Even though there are things one can use to make a dishonest claim. Calling conservatives "fascist" is just as wrong as calling liberals (economic liberals, political liberals) "socialist". A smear word, used for deliberate effect.

As I said to Jeff above, it's too bad that you feel that your Party should get to define a political and economic system which long predates it, did not originate with it and is as diverse in its variants as capitalism is. It's too bad that it irks you that people insist upon using definitions other than the one you prefer. But those other definitions have been around a good long time, and are just as valid as whichever one you favor.

But he's a socialist, and you're not, and he gets to say what is and what isn't - according to you! Some time ago you said that only members of a group could say what it meant to be a member. In that case it was you saying only a conservative could say what it meant to be a conservative, so my attempts to characterize conservatism could have no merit. I don't hold with that theory, but since you made your bed, you should now lie in it, lest you give the appearance of rank hypocrisy, which surely you wouldn't want

[Fencergrl]

I like Newt myself, but then we have Obama. I like both.

I'm having flashbacks of Mango. Ugh.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

There's a little bit of Mango in all of us, but the Fruit is Strong in this iteration.

[Inquartata]

I'm having flashbacks of Mango. Ugh.

You think?

[Inquartata]

Much stuff

Sorry, Jeff, that was just too long even for me. You have my permission to accuse me of "abandoning the argument" if you like.

[jeff]

I certainly will, but it's obvious that length is just an excuse since it wasn't long by our standards. This cuts to the heart of issues you have reason to avoid - besides the topic itself, your being called for sophistry, exaggeration, demanding and ignoring factual evidence. Length isn't the reason you're walking off the piste - it never is. When the question of Inq "writing in bad faith" (as the dear departed Peter G put it) comes up again as it inevitably will, this will be a handy page to reference.

[Inquartata]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Jeff, but things change...people change..."standards" change. I just haven't the heart for "our" old game any more.

Congratulate yourself some more now.