Oh. You really do believe that freindship is not an experience?

Cool. On that observation, I concede your point and will now drop it all.

Bot

In the context of how friendship was being discussed it has nothing to do with experience to qualify someone to be Vice President. Jim

Posted by JimSmith: Based on the title of the thread, neither was it the intended topic of discussion. Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is so obviously true. It reminds me of the Paris peace talks--all that time wasted arguing about the size and shape of the table.

If Bot wants to apply a different standard of friendship to Georgie Anne Geyer than he does to Donald Rumsfeld, it doesn't mean s**t to a tree, as a friend of mine used to say. And of course, it has zippo to do with the issue of experience for high office, which was the discussion I had in mind when I posted it.

Joe B.

We'll thought I'd drop back in, same story, *****ing about the *****er. See ya

Non sequitor alert!!!

I never said anything about Rummy, I was talking about the author.

Talk about not meaning $hit to a tree....

Bot

Posted by Botnst: I never said anything about Rummy, I was talking about the author.

Talk about not meaning $hit to a tree....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's the point, isn't it? You never said anything about Rummy because he's on your protected species list. You decided to take the incidental part of the original post, amplify it way beyond its importance, and judge one person in the friendship as corrupt, while ignoring the other.

Joe B.

That's because only one of them has apparently betrayed the friendship of the other in public, to make an editorial point, to sell newspapers.

Aside from that, what's the big deal.

Protected species my a$$. I'll go after policy if you want to, I love criticizing that. When I say criticize, I mean in the analytic, not polemic sense. Polemics are okay I guess but its kind of unsurprising, uneducating, unpleasant and therefore, boring.

But the Cult of Hate crap is just too weird.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: That's because only one of them has apparently betrayed the friendship of the other in public, to make an editorial point, to sell newspapers.

Aside from that, what's the big deal.

Protected species my a$$. I'll go after policy if you want to, I love criticizing that. When I say criticize, I mean in the analytic, not polemic sense. Polemics are okay I guess but its kind of unsurprising, uneducating, unpleasant and therefore, boring.

But the Cult of Hate crap is just too weird.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To criticize the work of a goverment official, when that is your job as a journalist, is not betraying a friendship. For you to assume Geyer's work is "polemical," not "analytical," is quite a leap. You've offered no evidence that you've actually read it.

Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

Joe B.

WTF should I offer you evidence of anything?

get real.

Did whatsername write the piece or Rummy?

Did she get paid or Rummy?

Did she claim friendship or Rummy.

Clown.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: WTF should I offer you evidence of anything?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right--why start now? Your version of analysis requires no evidence.

Joe B.

The discussion started nice and friendly and devolves in the usual pattern.



B

Posted by Botnst: The discussion started nice and friendly and devolves in the usual pattern.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your part in all that was?

Joe B.

Follow the posts and see for yourself. I mad remarks about the author, you took exception. No big deal and I enjoy that give and take.

Then you give it this, " Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

And here we are, Joe. As usual.

Bot

The chain of your logic seems to suggest that one should a get an A in an English class for writing a review of a movie one has never seen. I'm giving you an "F".

Posted by Botnst: Follow the posts and see for yourself. I mad remarks about the author, you took exception. No big deal and I enjoy that give and take.

Then you give it this, " Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

And here we are, Joe. As usual.

Bot

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My remark was in keeping with something that you repeatedly affirmed on the Michael Moore thread. That bed was made by you; now you think it's a low blow when you're made to lie in it.

Joe B.