>
>If folks don't want to bother to do some reading and just want to post
>blasts at me, don't expect me to conjure up a lengthy response. Your
>comments are beneath your usual level of discourse. I am tired, I am
>recovering from leg surgery and am cranky, I sometimes lose my temper, for
>which I apologize. But if you want to imply that I am making this up, or
>waving around a macho male wand, you might appreciate why I resent it.
i'm sorry you're not feeling well. i hope you feel better.
i do think that you treat most of the people you interact with in very patronizing and condescending ways. in your last exchange with me, you completely misrepresented what i'd said and completely failed to grasp the question i was asking. they were questions, actually, that would support your point.
i didn't say that you invented anything, i pointed out that i can't evaluate your claim because it had no context: you pointed to no evidence of the David Duke post. we have no idea who posted the articles. i, for example, post lefty things at a libertarian-right list. what does that say about the recipients of the post on that list? i don't think it says that, because they don't respond, that they are interested in the ideas i presented. that's just an example of how counting an event without context, in the instance you raise, means nothing to me as a social researcher.
i can't speak for everyone, but i guess i'm tired of feeling as if i'm somehow one of your enemies, one of the folks who is seduced by david duke. you never come out and say it, but you sure come across as suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is supporting those on the left who might embrace david duke. perhaps you could give me and example of a real life person on this list, pen-l, marxism who does, then i might understand.
kelley