|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Toney,
My point is this Toney I could respond many ways to your post about who is
right here you are I. I personally
don't have any ill feelings towards Flech or Trade Jack. I agree also that
there is always two sides to every argument. I also believe that any post
that was really about eight hours old is to late to go back and bring up.
It would be like me going through the archives finding a post you made off
subject because we all do this. Then suddenly swoop down and confront you
with it using harsh language. Even if you were wrong I would be wrong
because its an old post and I didn't use consideration and tact with my
disagreement. I question the guise of what's good or bad for the the list,
rules etc. towards a list member when harsh words or being used along with
profanity. Even when letters or omitted to fully create the word the
meaning is profane and abusive in nature. As far as politics go I'm into it
baby and I regularly go pick fights in Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich chat
rooms. Nobody ever wins but its refreshing to vent my frustrations and my
self righteous opinions and have a good tussle with the opposition. I don't
think Ron needs any help from me defending himself against anybody on this
list. I also know you and I could debate this right wrong issue for weeks
and not change either of our minds. So both of us will be imperfect people
on an imperfect list but I'm glad we have this list. This list has been
very valuable to me and I'm glad you, Ron, Flech and Trade Jack are all on it.
Robert
sptradr@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I have to disagree with you, Bob. Since Ron went off topic first (I do not
>view myself as a Clinton hater; ALL politicians are scum, IMO), I feel he
>owes the list an apology. The best thing would be for him to keep his
>politcal opinions private and not subject the list to this kind of abuse.
>
>I think you are wrong to attack fletch and TJ. I find your implication that
>they waited for a post to come along to attack ridiculous! What attack? I
>see no personal attack on Ron, only a slam on Clinton. Given Ron's
>previous history of attacking others on this list, he should be able to
>take a joke too! If Ron had not thrown in his "humorous??" aside on the
>presidential penis, then this discussion would not be necessary. He clearly
>wanted provoke an exchange to advance his pro-Clinton agenda. This has
>been clear from his past pro-Clinton comments.
>
>If we cannot discuss religion on this list, then politics should be taboo
>too. As we descend into the political election season, I and others do not
>want to see this list devolve into a purely political forum for those
>wanting to promote their activist agendas. Politics, AWA opinions, are
>worthless.
>
>-Tony Haas
>
>
|