Replies

No, I know that custom very well. But pinging someone has nothing to do with what I have asked you twice and what you have not answered, so let me try once more:

You would not have had to ping said freeper if you had not mentioned him in the post in the first place.

Right?

So, as I asked you twice before, my question is: WHY did you feel the need to mention said freeper in the post at all? WHY did you feel the need to use his opinion to back up your own, especially when you used his opinion on a matter of Romney supporters and my post, as I also said clearly in response to you, had NOTHING to do with ROMNEY or ROMNEY supporters!

To repeat, here's the post to which you responded:

This is the most condescending piece of tripe I’ve read on this matter yet. Does the author actually think that Iowans are not evaluating the candidates with their very own brain cells and reaching their very own conclusions?

I tell you, I am sick to death of any statement of support for a candidate, or any non-negative analysis of that candidate, being perceived emotionally as someone “telling you what to think.”

Good grief.

Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots? Thank you.

And for that you ran off yelling "DAAAADDDD, there's a freeper who doesn't think Romney supporters are mind-numbed robots!!"

What you said, specifically, in response to me saying "Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots?, was:

IMO, and that of the owner of FR, anyone who supports Romney and/or Paul IS a mind-numbed robot.

I think the author makes a lot of sense.

So, we disagree on that last point. My question to you was why you felt that my simplying disagreeing with the author's psychoemotional analytical framework, no matter WHICH candidate it was applied to, required you to bring another freeper into this matter in the first place.

You specifically said you agree with claiming that politically engaged people who don't see things your way are mind-numbed robots, rather than thinking people who reached a different conclusion.

I specifically said I reject that. Doesn't mean I agree with them. Just means that I respect that they have their reasons.

I don't think there's more to say on this subject.