--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of > > > someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word > > > for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? > > > Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? > > > > And you just did it *again*. > > > > Basta. > > > Discussing things with you is like interacting with a tar > baby made of unpleasantness. You really can't help yourself > can you? I don't think you have a cordial way to disagree. > At least I haven't seen any evidence of it.
Bullshit. You and I have disagreed frequently without things getting unpleasant. That isn't the problem. > You obviously believe the guy or you wouldn't have used it as > your definitive example. "Definitive example" is your term, not mine. At this point, it's the *only* example. And what I said was: "I certainly give what he has to say more credibility than some aides who were hanging around and don't have the guts to speak for attribution," and "His version sounds a whole lot more plausible to me." > You are taking his word for it. I gave reasons for finding his version more credible than the anonymous stories. You didn't address any of them or, apparently, take them into account at all. I used an > example of MCain being sincerely wrong. Maybe you don't agree > with that example. McCain's overall take on Palin is obviously irrelevant to the competing versions of these stories. Apples and Fig Newtons. You're too smart not to realize that.
