Another straw-man from you. I stated two facts.
Ahem. Talk abotu dishonest argumentation. I assume your statement doesn't exist in a void (though, from seeing your other argumentation, I may be incorrect in that assumption), so your saying "Your newbie bias is right there in you tag line" obviously meant something. And since my tagline openly states that I am an anti-libertarian, the most rational assumption is that your statement was intended to suggest that being a "newbie" somehow has something to do with being anti-libertarian. How you figure this, however, I'm not too sure.
(BTW, I'm not actually a newbie. I've been around FR for better than three years, but recently changed my username to bring my FR name into line with the rest of my online "nom de cyber" uses of Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus)
In short, however, I think what is going on here is that you either didn't understand what I originally wrote, or didn't bother to read it fully and/or closely. Instead, you saw the "anti-libertarian" in my tagline, got your knickers into a knot about it, and flew off into a pre-programmed libertarian rant.
And since my tagline openly states that I am an anti-libertarian, the most rational assumption is that your statement was intended to suggest that being a "newbie" somehow has something to do with being anti-libertarian. How you figure this, however, I'm not too sure.
The most rational thinking is that I stated two facts -- newbie and anti-libertarian. Whatever assumption you made was of your choosing. Did you know that most everyone is biased?
In short, however, I think what is going on here is that you either didn't understand what I originally wrote, or didn't bother to read it fully and/or closely.
I know that a person can't be anywhere near as oppressive as a government. To say, or worse, actually believe, that the two can be just as oppressive as the other is irrational. It simply isn't true. Not by a million miles.
Instead, you saw the "anti-libertarian" in my tagline, got your knickers into a knot about it, and flew off into a pre-programmed libertarian rant.
Nope. I didn't read your tagline until after my first post to you. Hey, you want to wear a chip on your shoulder that's your business. You came out swinging in your opening 4 post.
TQC: To 8 As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument" doesn't count as a denial of what you wrote? I think you need to start reading more closely.... 14
As you no doubt know very well the post you quote of yourself came after my post. My 15 post was a response to your 12 post. Thus I had not read your 14 post. You assert that what you wrote above (highlighted in red) was in your 12 post. It wasn't, isn't. It was in your 14 post. Just as obvious is that the time span between my 15 post and your 14 posts is 1 minute 27 seconds. So unless I was really fast -- which I'm not -- in reading and thinking/forming a response, writing it and posting it, I wouldn't be able to have read your post at 14 and done all that in just 1 minute 27 seconds. So what ever game you're playing it sure isn't honest. See my tagline.