To goad the discussion into disintegrating into a discussion on whether or not the Sisyphus reference was an insult or not is, frankly, silly.
You're funny! Did you also find "self-depricating" (sic) the inferences to people belonging in rubber rooms, wearing colored glasses, and calling their opinions delusional ramblings? (just to name a few).
The crux of the issue is that he took this fight on knowing full well much of what he said would be disregarded—but he understood that there is honor in the process, even if the goal is never reached.
Hmmmm. Honor in the process? My first post to Rokke on this thread was in response to a post I challenged that he had called the most "cogent" and "accurate" on the thread. No response from Rokke. I did, however, get a very thoughtful reply from the original poster of the comment.
One of the things that makes this forum great (or has in the past) is that rational discussion can be discovered, even on emotional topics. On occasion, that asset breaks down and disappears for awhile. This appears to be one of those cases.
I agree but am confused by the direction of your post. By posting to me, are you suggesting that I have been irrational in some way? Please cite any and all examples, with links.
I've been watching this thread with great interest for the past several days. Rokke is a brave man to even come in here and discuss the issue. He has first hand knowledge of the issue. He was willing to go head to head on the issue. He asked for one parameter—that evidence be gleaned from the text of the document itself. That was not respected from the beginning.
Many of us have first hand knowledge of the issue. It affects many of us in a multitude of ways. I don't think that discussing a topic makes one particularly "brave". The unwillingness to discuss a topic might, however, be considered somewhat cowardly though.
And why should a parameter be dictated by one individual poster on a thread, not even the freeper who started the thread? And, since the topic of this thread was an article, why should a single document be the center of discussion when the subject article leads us in several directions, not just the aforementioned CFR document? Frankly, I like to broaden my learning resources not limit them.
Instead the rebuttals have disintegrated into book titles from Amazon (LOL), long discussions on the meaning of "affiliation" (depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.) ...
Hmmmm... I found the book titles informative, actually. And who exactly took the conversation on "affiliation" off subject comparing it to Free Republic?
...and attacks on his "Agenda" because he happens to know CFR members.
I certainly didn't attack him, or his "agenda". If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it, with links. And, as I previously posted, I also personally know several CFR members (disclosure: none of them are family members).
That he has been patient enough to put up with it all is a tribute to his character. There are many others on this forum who have simply given up and wandered off to find less exasperating situations.
Do you have equal praise for those who were insulted and called names but chose to "put up with it" and ignore it?
To believe this theory is certainly within your right.
Well, thank you! That's mighty magnanimous of you! I don't know if I believe it or not. But it certainly has as its basis adequate reliable sources of associated materials, many posted on this thread, which make it worthy of discussion.
What is being asked of you is to simply logically, unemotionally and specifically back up your assertions. Doing that would be as good for you, as it would be for him.
Again, are you implying that I have somehow been illogical or emotional or that I have made any assertion that I have not backed up? If so, please cite any and all examples, with links. I would certainly like to correct that.
To goad the discussion into disintegrating into a discussion on whether or not the Sisyphus reference was an insult or not is, frankly, silly.
Talk about goading off-topic discussion! You somehow turned your entire post into a discussion of Me and Rokke and how he is brave and honorable and I am emotional and illogical. ROFL! Please don't rewrite history. The thread is what the thread is and it certainly doesn't resemble the one you describe. I think, perhaps, a study of the Constitution and its conflicts with Free Trade agreements might have been a more productive use of your time.