--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall <thomas.p...@...> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:20 PM, authfriend <jst...@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" <willytex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But it's these kind of statements and actions > > > > > > (putting the congressman in gun cross-hairs) > > > > > > that creates an atmosphere where the unhinged > > > > > > feel they have the OK to go ahead... > > <snip> > > > "The images long described as crosshairs or rifle > > > sights were actually just surveyor's symbols..." > > > > Not. > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/5339914742 > > > I toyed with the troops and Commandant Stanley here on FFL. > But I was playing. You, OTOH, sat crouched in waiting for a > moment like this to arrive, didn't you Judy?
Uh, no. > We don't usually post common current events here, Judy. Oh, yeah, we do, actually, Tom. All the time. > In fact IRRC you chided someone here for doing just that, > saying something to the effect that everybody already has > his favorite news source. Don't think you're remembering correctly. > And how quickly you posted the "evidence" against Palin. You mean, where I said in my third post on the shooting, "It's beginning to look at though the apparent connection may be just coincidental. The alleged shooter appears to be an apolitical psychotic"? You were pretty quick to post the gunsight graphic yourself, not realizing I had already posted it. Goodness knows it was the first thing many people thought of when they heard Giffords had been shot. > Like you had it in your Miss Haversham Keepsake Box, waiting > for the moment to finally arrive. How's your last 24 hours > of vindication felt? I think you must be reading some imaginary version of FFL. I agree with Joe's comment quoted at the top of this post. You're welcome to disagree with it. But to refer to a tragedy like this as some kind of "vindication" for those of us who find the right's violent rhetoric a problem is pretty low. > Do you remember Maharishi saying what you place your > attention on will grow? Yeah, that's why I think we need to change the tone of political discourse in this country. Palin is understandably embarrassed by the gunsight graphic in light of the shooting. But for her to have her spokesperson claim the gunsight symbols were "surveyor's marks" doesn't pass the laugh test, given what she's said about the graphic, including in the tweet I posted the URL to.
