X2. And this is a good thing, it's called synthesis which really means nothing more than "talking things out and summarizing so you both understand what each one thinks and was saying."

__________________
Strelnik
Invest in America: Buy a Congressman!

1950 170SD
1951 Citroen 11BN
1953 Citroen 11BNF limo
1953 220a project
1959 180D
1960 190D
1960 Borgward Isabella TS 2dr
1983 240D daily driver
1983 380SL
1990 350SDL daily driver alt
3 x Citroen DS21M, down from 5
3 x Citroen 2CV, down from 6

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I do not subscribe to the whole "thesis/ antithesis/ synthesis" way of thinking as that rejects the whole concept of right and wrong, or absolutes. There are times when it may be appropriate, but there are times when it is not the best approach.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Do you find that unreasonable?

"Unreasonable" is not the word I would choose. "Odd" is probably a better choice.

By that standard, all political threads here would be considered 'baiting'.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

I'm unclear on the precise nature of my offense. Is it that I expressed opinions that I thought would draw expressions of contrary opinions? I thought that's what went on around here. And if the thread seems pointless, why respond?

So I could start a thread with this- XXXX group is stupid and they will act like clowns in a circus, so all you XXXX group members here care to respond?- if I follow your logic. I don't think starting a thread by calling out a group for actions they have not taken is the same as comments on what any group has already done.

You misconstrue my original post and ignore the substantive part of my comment.

I didn't accuse any group of acting like clowns. I said the process would be a circus. It was a bipartisan criticism. I fear that Dems and Repubs alike will turn the process into a circus. Given the balance of power we have at the moment, the GOP will probably wind up being more clownish in this particular case, but that's not a comment on the party.

Of course, the process could turn into a great example of civility and reason. Stranger things have happened.

As for my prediction that the GOP attacks will be seen as silly, I already stated my reason. Their attacks have begun and are weak, IMHO. Of course the process is barely started, so it might turn into a fiasco for the nominee. For example, there is a video of Judge Sotomayor in which she seems to be saying that she is an activist and proud of it. I don't know the context of her comments, but since when does our sound-bite society worry about context in matters as trivial as a life-time appointment to our highest court? If Sotomayor is the nominee, I'm sure we will see that video until we are sick of it.

And you ignore the part of my original post about emphathy. Others took that comment as an opportunity to talk about judicial activism, which is the part that interested me. If it doesn't interest you, I suggest you move on rather than spend time critiquing the subjects that others wish to discuss.

You and JR are two of the farther left- so calling the process "silly" and a "circus" could hardly be meant to mean the democrats are the clowns in a circus. Not a stretch by any means to go from "silly" and "circus" to clowns. You do know that clowns are the point man of silly in the circus, right? If the actions of XXXX group already took place then of course you can say it was silly or clownish- but calling the group derogatory terms before they've done anything is baiting if you ask me. If this thread is not baiting then all of us here have an obligation to define the rules a bit more so that others can also start threads with these intentions. It's not if I am interested or not- it's the future implications of allowing actions like this to be tolerated. Misconstrue is another word for "you do not think like I do"- so if you "misconstrue" anyone's future threads as offensive or baiting as I or others do this one then they could then be dismissive and tell you "I suggest you move on" ???

So now you are calling me a liar. Nice.

Read my original post. My circus comment doesn't refer to the GOP.

And what does JR have to do with this?I agree with that part.Two things wrong here. First, the circus comment was not directed at any particular group, unless you consider the entire Congress to be a group, which would not be unreasonable, I suppose.

The other thing wrong with your comment is that the GOP has already begun their attack by trying to equate Obama's "empathy" comment with a desire to appoint a justice who will be an activist. Maybe that attack will work for them politically. It seems lame to me, so it is not accurate to say that I criticized them "before they've done anything."Actions like what, you making accusations and then calling other people liars?

What rule have I violated?You must have a different dictionary than I do. I guess so, although I doubt that I will feel the need to pass judgment on someone else's thread in the fashion that you did here.

In your first sentence you attack the GOP... shortly thereafter you say
How are you not talking about the GOP ???
If the GOP does not object then will it still be a circus? Of course not- therefore the GOP will be "frivolous" "silly" and cause the circus. I never said you lied, nor did I call you a liar. I don't believe you to be a liar at all.

The part that refers to the GOP is about the GOP. The part that doesn't refer to the GOP is not about the GOP. Why won't you accept my word on that?I will be amazed if the GOP doesn't object to the nomination. That alone doesn't create a circus. I think both parties need to participate in order for us to have a full-fledged circus.Then I misconstrued the part where you continued to say that my comment was about the GOP even after I said that it wasn't.Good.

This circus is getting frivolous enough to be silly.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif