... with the assessment of S. Lindsey in this case.

In my opinion, Sniffles5's blog had a flock of Red Herrings and a more than a pair of straw men.

Perhaps you two SHOULD debate live and in person as opposed to drawing on the resources or others to parse the statements of each other.

The part that I don't understand is why are some bloggers so personal, mean, and angry rather than accepting the fact that people have differing opinions based on their emotional and philosophical views and their life experiences.

What is thought to be true and correct for one person may not be so for another. Can't we all just be civil and not make personal attacks or discount the opinions of others?

Thank you for sharing your opinion, and more importantly, taking the time to point out specifically that this WAS an opinion.

I (obviously) disagree with your premise that my analysis consisted of red herrings and straw men, I think that the issue is even more basic: the fundamental difference between "fact" and "opinion".

The great statesman Daniel P. Moynihan once had a fantastic quote attributed to him: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. I truly believe that S. Lindsey does not recognize this distinction.

Let me give you an example: If I were to say "Ronald Reagan was an incompetent president", that's me on my soapbox offering my opinion. However, if I were to say "Ronald Reagan was an incompetent president, and thats why voters threw him out in 1984 and elected Mondale president", my statement is no longer simply an opinion, as it contains a demonstrably false "fact". "Truth" and "correctness" have no bearing in this matter, I've spoken something that is simply not true.

I'm not going to rehash my blog, but I'd like to use one case as an example of Lindsey's duplicity, in case #2. A poster named DaisyHeadMaisy posted her opinion that Reagan was not a good president. Like a good "libertarian", S. Lindsay responded in a full-throated roar in a reflexive defense of Reagan. He offered specific "facts" to "prove" that Reagan was a better president, and had the audacity to challenge people to "look it up".

Well, a few of us took Lindsey up on his challenge and lo and behold, we found out that what Lindsey was stating just wasn't true. In fact, his "facts" were 100% wrong, the exact opposite was true. Again, "truth" and "correctness" had NOTHING to do with Lindsey's allegations...he was simply mistaken....or else he deliberately lied.

Next, look what happened when Lindsey was confronted with evidence that his allegations: he attempted to bluster his way out. Lindsey lacked the moral character to own up to his mistakes.

Time after time, for the past two months, we've seen Lindsey post "facts" that just aren't true. He's not interested in meaningful debate, he's interested only in promoting his position via any means necessary.

So tell me, JMartinez, since Lindey lacks the moral character to show respect to his fellow bloggers by admitting he was wrong, why should we bloggers in turn have any respect for Lindsey?

JM.. You are very correct.. I have attempted to be courteous and “ADULT” with Sniffles, however after the personal attacks and the attempted cyber bullying unfortunately I find myself falling to his level more often the not..
His act is easy to do hiding behind a anonymous identity.. he can post away his attacks never fearing having to face the consequences of his attacks.. I do find it the height of hypocrisy to criticize “Fred” for him saying this is his real name while hiding behind the moniker of “SNIFFLES5”.
However all that being said sometimes when all you have is a weak defense a strong offense is all you have left. I would truly like to have Sniff just occasionally answer the point of these postings and not deflect the issues with pointless semantics.. and attacks on the poster..
Sniff.. I do apologize for changing your “Name” not very adult of me.. you of course may continue to call me lil snipy if it helps..
The offer stands.. have a cup of coffee with me.. any time.. I love a good heated debate.. We will just have one rule.. Politics and Politics only please.. no personal attacks..
We must all stand as one.. Divided we will fall..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

"I have attempted to be courteous"....

Let's see, you joined on New Years Eve. Five short days later, you are spewing quotes such as "You liberals said it was fine.. Oh that's right it's ok as long as your (sic) an ass.. oh I mean a Democrat.."

That's a rather unusual way for you to demonstrate your "courtesy", don't you think?

being a smarta$$ and being an A$$.. I can be a smart a$$ which sir are you..I think I said "with Sniffles" not everyone.. once again you can not handle a "fact" without warping it to fit your point of view..
(all can read for themselves above) and besides you have to go all the way back to when I first started posting..and to another poster.. want to share that entire link.. and see I was slammed first..hmmm..
.... and since you so quickly threw the olive branch I extended down.. I guess coffee's out right?

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I find it bizarre and unsettling that you are wrapping yourself in the bloody shirt of the aggrieved. You, who are quick to attack any critique of criminal behavior as originating from a racist heart, or Mainstream with her viseral hatred for all things crinoline-especially to a blogging "noob", long for a courteous exchange? I will not hold my breath for that CHANGE to happen.

Muddle, would you care to help this noob out and share your experiences about the wonderful benefits of posting on this blog under your own name?

Try again.. in the next round...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I'm not sure I can help here.

After all, I always posted under "muddle" and never once--not even once--mentioned my own name or the name of my (former and regrettable) employer. It took a rabid fundamentalist (or two) to "out" me (of course, anonymously and incognito), based upon my several unintentional indiscretions, and the rest is history.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

I haven't been on these blogs that long. I am "Incognito", not the incognito that "outed" Muddle

No. Of course not! The person responsible here did not know who her true friends were.

She opted to hurt someone who, generally, offered up an articulation and defense of her overall worldview, but who, unfortunately, did not toe the line on every single point.

She not only contacted someone connected with the employer, but then, later, threatened even more retribution, based upon a perverse interpretation of scripture.

Also, I happen to know that Cal banned her from this site for her actions, and so, as a professing Christian, she would never return under a different moniker and lie about her actual identity. Therefore, she is no longer blogging here.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

that no one would use multiple Personalitie$ uhh I mean Identitie$ to post then agree then disagree then agree again all with one$elf..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link