He's so right he's wrong

Palm Beach Post ^ | February 10, 2003 | George Bennett

[D.C. Media Hor]

grow up.

[D.C. Media Hor]

enjoy your 15 minutes Gene -- it isn't going to last much longer.

[rwfromkansas]

Look, are you that journalist? Journalism can be a very noble profession, but if Gene is telling the truth, you are NOT a noble journalist. Please provide evidence that he is not telling the truth; he presented a comprehensive explanation for your complaint. Do you deny everything he said?

[hmmmmm]

I thought threats were frowned upon here, especially threats from cowards. Can you prove your comments, Ho, or are you fodder for the abuse button?

[hmmmmm]

Oops, missed an 'r' there, apologies to any offended.

[Seeking the truth]

Choose your words & actions very carefully from this point forward.

Remember, I know who you are.

[an amused spectator]

grow up.

LOL! I'm being lectured by a fact-challenged spoiled brat who apparently may have a stable of high-dollar lawyers available to threaten posters on the Free Republic.

Liberals can't take debate in the real world. :-)

[D.C. Media Hor]

In the words of Thomas Alva Edison, "So what?"

[D.C. Media Hor]

Liberal? Me? Hah! You have no clue about how funny that is. Not sure what you meant by fact-challenged... bad typist certainly but fact-challenged?????? And I love the way people use phrases like "apparently may" thinking it protects them from being, well, wrong.

And if you think you have been putting forward anything resembling debate you, well, I am reminded of the old Monty Python sketch...

[D.C. Media Hor]

exactly what is it I am expected to, to use your word, "prove."

[Taxman]

Just found this one, Gene. Good to have seen you at CPAC.

I gather that sales of "No Muslims -- No Terrorism" and "Islam: Religion of Peace" stickers remain good?

Seems to me that, given the tap dancing that D.C. Media Hor is engaging in, you should "out" him. After all, he has made a serious accusation and refuses to comment on the veracity of your challenge to him.

To D.C. Media Hor: We FReepers are open about our beliefs, and we are not Politically Correct. It was not Baptists that caused the death and carnage on 9-11. Get a life!

And you can bet your life on this one: It will be a cold day in Hell before I will ever trust a Muslim again! In my book, every Muslim is suspect, and must prove to me that they mean me and my country no harm.

If any Muslims are reading this post, rest assured that I mean you no harm, for I am a peace loving person who is content to live and let live. But do not ever give me a reason to doubt that you mean me and my country harm!

[an amused spectator]

"Fact-challenged" means that you're a liar. You made a statement, and Seeking the truth directly contradicted your statement.

You haven't refuted him in a week, and 58 posts, and you continue to dance around like Bill Clinton at a deposition:

=======
D.C. Media Hor:

"You ar enot being completely honest -- there was at least one journalist who appraoched you wearing his identification and who informed you, as he purchased the bumperstickers, that they were indeed offensive..."

Seeking the truth:

"Both badges were turned with the name/information inside out - meaning I could not see who you were."
=======

Please don't bleed on us, Black Knight. ;-)

[trick question]

Where's the contradiction? DC said the reporter was wearing his credentials, and STT said that the person who approached him's credentials had swung around on their tether and he couldn't see them. Doesn't sound like any contradiction.

[an amused spectator]

Where's the contradiction? DC said the reporter was wearing his credentials, and STT said that the person who approached him's credentials had swung around on their tether and he couldn't see them.

initial statement by Seeking the truth:

"The Washington Post journalist never identified himself to my wife..."

insufficient "rebuttal" by D.C. Media Hor:

"there was at least one journalist who appraoched you wearing his identification..." (identification and credentials are NOT interchangeable terms, no matter what standards they have in American "schools" these days.)

===============================

D.C. Media Hor is trying to pretend that he identified himself, but is never willing to gainsay Seeking the truth's further direct rebuttals of the Hor's original Clintonian contention. ===============================

Hypothetical: Your boss sends you to a conference where you're required to wear a name tag. He tells you directly to wear a name tag to identify yourself to other conferees. You wear the name tag backwards. He sees you wearing the name tag backwards, and reprimands you.

Is the reprimand justified?

[trick question]

If the identification is to be worn as something hung around my neck from a string or chain, and it swings around, then his repremand would be out of line.

[an amused spectator]

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!

"He tells you directly to wear a name tag to identify yourself to other conferees."

This wasn't a quiz on the post-modernist solution to your boss' reprimand. What part of "identify yourself" don't you understand?

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is", is. ;-)