Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
No, you're now just saying the same thing over again. You are trying for the general characterization ("you do this all the time") without the rigor of the specific. When I've spoken of bias or leaning, it's been for specific individuals, for specific reasons, and I have not seen any responses which make me think I was wrong. You want to attribute to me the idea that "it's anti-Bush, so it's biased", and that hasn't been the case. It's akin to the intellectually weak approach on this board of making frequent snide references to Bush's "lies", and then testily backing down, upon challenge, to "but he didn't explain it well enough for me". If your best defense of an assertion is "well, everybody knows that", while pointing to your cohorts, you're probably better off not making it.
|
Are you intentionally ignoring what I said?
As I said, I wasn't challenging any specific assertion you had made about bias, but was just poking a little fun. Feel free to defend that, as you have, but that wasn't my point. Sorry it stung. Keep digging until you pop out in China.
The main thing I was doing was trying to post an article for all to enjoyment of all.
"You want to attribute to me the idea that 'it's anti-Bush, so it's biased', and that hasn't been the case."
Wow, Bilmore.
I was talking about my perception of most your posting in general for essentially all of 2003 -- on political topics, but especially on the issue of the Iraq War and particularly the Administration "selling" of the decision to go to War. As I recall, it essentially started about the time of the battle over your personal definition of partisanship and continued onward. It seems as if you frame your responses to each post as if it were sent by an adversary in the context of an overall reelection battle, or a battle for the security of the nation.
On the separate issue we're also discussing: It is also my _perception_ that you have given somewhat less effort to substantively engaging and debating "leftist" points of view than in the past, but are much more willing to simply give such an argument the back of your hand with the statement that the sources for the information can't be trusted. You may be right in any given case, but that argument can be "intellectually lazy and weak" in itself if used as an avoidance tactic.
I don't feel the need to go back and dig up old posts (most of which are gone) to support my perception or to do a compare and contrast. I'm not trying to win an oral argument, or a case, or even a debate. I'm sure you can point to many posts in which this was not the case. It is what it is.
S_A_M
