>>Good Sir,
>>The point of my post was actually to sound like some left >>wing babbling brook of a man. Oddly though, you did not >>point out any of my errors. Did you find them not really
>>worth addressing? Did it seem as if I was baiting you a >>bit too much?
Not at all. I thought instead of getting all excited and going off left, right and centre - I made an attempt to stay `on topic` and you could take it as you will. It was quite fulfilling, I have to say, to delete out the over-use of my presumed `pet phrases` (`liberal media` `liberal elite` blah blah blah) and actually try and respond in kind.
>>I was trying (and I'll come clean here) to sound a bit >>like a leftist version of you. How'd I do?
Very well actually =o) If you want to raise your game - allow me to make a few suggestions...
a) Bookmark the NRO, Frontpage, The Weekly Standard and The Drudgereport - read 60% of them when you're in the mood for a good barney, add phrases like "Jonah Goldberg said..." to your assertions.
b) Add references to jazz music so you sound like you're a cool cat.
c) No generalisation is to big if you have at least 2 other sources you can throw in the pot.
>>I do like your fire Richard. You seem to be willing to >>argue just about anything.
Like I've said, why bother acting like sisters in agreement? I get the feeling, all heat and light aside, there might be something I said that gave you pause. We all have a common denominator (Mr. Baerwald) so surely he's done something right when he doesn't have a messagee board full of sweet & loving messages from people who agree all the time. Surely it's good that there is healthy debate, disagreement and an occasional meeting of the minds. I often sit around arguing the toss with my friends - so this is just an extension of that.
>>You'll have to excuse me now as the men in white coats >>have arrived to take me back to my room....Peace & Love,
>>Dr. Wahoo Capybara
Thanks man...
Richard
yet more clarifications...
R
richard
(view)
>>Good Sir,
>>The point of my post was actually to sound like some left >>wing babbling brook of a man. Oddly though, you did not >>point out any of my errors. Did you find them not really
>>worth addressing? Did it seem as if I was baiting you a >>bit too much?
Not at all. I thought instead of getting all excited and going off left, right and centre - I made an attempt to stay `on topic` and you could take it as you will. It was quite fulfilling, I have to say, to delete out the over-use of my presumed `pet phrases` (`liberal media` `liberal elite` blah blah blah) and actually try and respond in kind.
>>I was trying (and I'll come clean here) to sound a bit >>like a leftist version of you. How'd I do?
Very well actually =o) If you want to raise your game - allow me to make a few suggestions...
a) Bookmark the NRO, Frontpage, The Weekly Standard and The Drudgereport - read 60% of them when you're in the mood for a good barney, add phrases like "Jonah Goldberg said..." to your assertions.
b) Add references to jazz music so you sound like you're a cool cat.
c) No generalisation is to big if you have at least 2 other sources you can throw in the pot.
>>I do like your fire Richard. You seem to be willing to >>argue just about anything.
Like I've said, why bother acting like sisters in agreement? I get the feeling, all heat and light aside, there might be something I said that gave you pause. We all have a common denominator (Mr. Baerwald) so surely he's done something right when he doesn't have a messagee board full of sweet & loving messages from people who agree all the time. Surely it's good that there is healthy debate, disagreement and an occasional meeting of the minds. I often sit around arguing the toss with my friends - so this is just an extension of that.
>>You'll have to excuse me now as the men in white coats >>have arrived to take me back to my room....Peace & Love,
>>Dr. Wahoo Capybara
Thanks man...
Richard
>>The point of my post was actually to sound like some left >>wing babbling brook of a man. Oddly though, you did not >>point out any of my errors. Did you find them not really
>>worth addressing? Did it seem as if I was baiting you a >>bit too much?
Not at all. I thought instead of getting all excited and going off left, right and centre - I made an attempt to stay `on topic` and you could take it as you will. It was quite fulfilling, I have to say, to delete out the over-use of my presumed `pet phrases` (`liberal media` `liberal elite` blah blah blah) and actually try and respond in kind.
>>I was trying (and I'll come clean here) to sound a bit >>like a leftist version of you. How'd I do?
Very well actually =o) If you want to raise your game - allow me to make a few suggestions...
a) Bookmark the NRO, Frontpage, The Weekly Standard and The Drudgereport - read 60% of them when you're in the mood for a good barney, add phrases like "Jonah Goldberg said..." to your assertions.
b) Add references to jazz music so you sound like you're a cool cat.
c) No generalisation is to big if you have at least 2 other sources you can throw in the pot.
>>I do like your fire Richard. You seem to be willing to >>argue just about anything.
Like I've said, why bother acting like sisters in agreement? I get the feeling, all heat and light aside, there might be something I said that gave you pause. We all have a common denominator (Mr. Baerwald) so surely he's done something right when he doesn't have a messagee board full of sweet & loving messages from people who agree all the time. Surely it's good that there is healthy debate, disagreement and an occasional meeting of the minds. I often sit around arguing the toss with my friends - so this is just an extension of that.
>>You'll have to excuse me now as the men in white coats >>have arrived to take me back to my room....Peace & Love,
>>Dr. Wahoo Capybara
Thanks man...
Richard
