to Evie and JR's levity responses (or perhaps their personally held beliefs which I viewed with levity) and then got into answering what ED said in his posts, with a list of questions.
J. It was not a barrage. It was individual responses to Ed's barrage of defense which he made to me.
Take Free Trade/Free Market. Ed identified a dichotomy between the two, that you can have one without the other. Personally, I disagree with that assessment. So, I asked for evidence or at least definitions.
By your post, you support my allegation that his separation of the issues is simplistic.
J. For whatever reason, you have been appearing to be Ed's sycophant the past few months, defending anything he says, backing him up with or without request or need, attacking any post which in any way criticises Ed.
Are you simply in agreement with all his viewpoints? Whether or not those viewpoints require further elucidation? Or do you simply feel that criticisng any post that Ed has criticised will leave you safe from personal response.
Well, I've known you far longer, and in both emotional and informational terms at far greater depth, than I know Ed. We've agreed and disagreed for many years.
Whatever is your reason, it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You are, or at least were, my friend. I view it as current. And friends, like spouses, get emotional and discuss things. Argue. Agree. Disagree. etc.
Right wing America has taken up the debating approach to non-right wing America in this forum of using 3 standard responses
1) Your news sources are biased and BS, my news sources are unbiased and correct.
2) You didn't read it correctly, and no matter how you respond, I know you didn't read it correctly, because if you'd read it correctly you'd agree with my viewpoint, and as you do not agree with my viewpoint, then you must be a little thick because the article
2a) proves mine is the only valid viewpoint; or
2b) is from your biased and unreliable sources, which therefore proves my viewpoint correct.
3) Your name is Dave Konkel, and that means you are a left wing moron and your opinion is wrong by definition.
BTW - the first evidence of the above happened in 2000/2001, in a telephone conversation with a USA citizen, who told me plainly that DK was a left wing ***** and the speaker hated him with a passion. I was surprised at the depth of feeling. Also at the apparently correct pronunciation of DK's surname.
What did I see as a response to my post? Ansers? No, I saw JR and Evie having a little quiet chuckle together, "Ian tells science fiction and fiction history". What they mean is that my view of many events is not in accord with their view, and therefore is immediately incorrect.
What do I then see - you telling Tim that I issued a barrage, when in fact all I did was list the questions JR raised.
I appreciate your posts in the main for one paramount reason: you provide in depth information to support why you disagree with me. JR and Evie simply denigrated my intelligence, as that was easier than actually responding to what I said in discussions with them, as what I said wasn't what they perceived I should have said.