Skip to main content

View Diary: Sandy Hook families speak out on their loss ... and guns (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is exactly what I was saying. We shouldn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patrick Costighan, PavePusher

    call names, it is unproductive and makes everything after it invalid.  

    •  Right. More game playing. I'll spell it out for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Avila


      a) You said I called you a name (not true)
      b) You said anyone who calls anyone else a name in this debate is ignorant
      c) By your definition you are calling me ignorant

      You can continue to play this game - it's spelled out here for anyone who wants to see.

      I want to understand the other side of this debate, and in fact have changed my opinion based on discusses in good faith, but when I'm faced with stuff like this from you, I take your opinion less seriously.

      •  Again, I was not referencing you! I have said that (5+ / 0-)

        like 10 times.  YOU SAID for me to tell my "friends" to not call people names.  Correct?  ok then.  When in fact you had no reason at all to say that to me, as you do not know that I have any friends who say any such things.


         Then I SAID my friends don't do that and have not done that and if they did I would indeed tell them how stupid it was. I also said anyone who does resort to name calling is ignorant and can not debate with adult discussion.

         To then demonstrate  the point and that it occurs on both sides of the issue, I used names that are used on both sides of the gun debate.  Again, not in reference to you but in general.

        I THEN apologize in length if you had taken my post as a personal reference to you and AGAIN said it was not a personal reference to you.

        I will ONCE AGAIN state it was not a personal reference to you in particular.  

        I can not possibly be any more clear than was not a personal reference to you and if you took it as such or my words came out in that way or whatever....I am apologetic.  

        •  You're missing the point. n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, Avila
          •  Apparently but so are you, I guess. Regardless, I (4+ / 0-)

            won't say it again.  You heard me the first time.

            •  I actually get what you are saying and don't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              disagree. What you are missing is that I am talking about two separate threads - not only this thread, but a thread from a few days back.

              And the basic point I am making is "Don't throw stones in glass houses." That's all you need to takeaway from this discussion.

          •  which is: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, annecros

            a) I get the last word in


            b) you're wrong on all counts until you concede that you are personally reprehensible for responding in a fashion that I may have taken offense to, and thus have no standing in this conversation.

            Oh, and one more thing:  you must agree to a ban on civilian possession of guns, or you have no valid opinion.

            That's my read of this: "no I didn't" - "yes you did" exchange.

            The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

            by 43north on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site