Ike, I've gone back and reviewed several of your posts and the only conclusion that I can reach is not only do I NOT owe you an apology, but I and others have been far more charitable to you than you deserve. You delight not in argument but in character assassination. The MC.com webmaster has more than once warned you to behave appropriately, and you have threatened (promised!) more than once to leave and never again post on MC.com. Yet here you are ....
With respect to our particular history, you started our quarrel by broadsiding me full-force after I stated a concern about then candidate McCain's age. In subsequent posts you accused me of having a substance abuse problem, slandered my faith, questioned my sanity, and hurled just about every other insult in the book at me - including in the post above. I started to list your insulting attacks, but after a dozen or so I decided there were just too many. Let's just say your vocabulary of schoolyard insults is - uh - impressive(?).
On the other hand, the majority of my criticisms of you have been directed at your comments and expressed opinions. When I have commented on your behavior, it has been in direct response to your outlandish attacks on me as briefly described in the preceding paragraph.
I have mentioned you twice in the recent past - once because I suspected you were making anonymous posts (which you refuted and I immediately acknowledged), and once to contradict RA's assertion that I label everyone who disagrees with me "ignorant". I did not bring your name up for the sheer fun of it, nor did I prolong the discussion of my opinion of you, nor have I attempted to cast more fuel on the flame as you did in your most recent post (above). (on a side note, the novelty of the idea of you watching SNL or SP provided some anesthesia for the deep, deep pain
of being called a "girly-man").
And what's with your hypocritical outrage about mentioning you in posts? I do recall that you agreed to "honor" my demand to leave me the f*** alone (now I know what girly-man talk is). Your pledge came soon after you hid an insult in a supposed "apology" to me for commenting in a way that was particulary insensitive to the recent passing of my father. Then, less than 24 hours after making that pledge, you violated it completely by posting a comment in a different thread that insulted me, my religion and my ancestors. You couldn't keep your word for 24 hours, but I'm forbidden from ever mentioning your name again? No dice, Pal.
Well, to wrap this up (I've already spent more time on it than it deserves), I stand by my response to RA (with one exception discussed below). I don't hand out the titles "ignorant", "idiot", or "bigot" willy-nilly just because I disagree with what someone says. People have to make some astoundingly stupid statements to earn those titles. You, Sir Ike, have earned your titles well along with a new one as a result of the latest personal slur you hurled in my general direction, which was truly infantile
I would like to acknowledge that I thought Ike's post on the "Old Man Potter" thread was excellent - despite the source. When I saw Mr. Cheney being wheeled on to the inaugural podium, all I could think was that it would take an incredible mount of pain to make a man that proud acquiese to sitting in a wheelchair in front of all those VIPs. I'm sure his suffering was enormous, and I don't wish that on anybody - even and maybe especially Dick Cheney. I just wish Cheney would acknowledge that waterboarding is torture and torture does not produce actionable intelligence -- but that's a matter for another thread.
Now, regarding that one exception I referred to above.
RA, as I reviewed the event that brought the ire of Ike down upon me so many months ago, I realized that my statement about the prospect of McCain possibly showing signs of the onset of senility was strikingly similar to your comment about Obama potentially having the qualities of con-man. As I reviewed other threads, I came across more of your postings - some of which I supported, others which I would argue against, but none that would fall into the realm of ignorance, bigotry or just plain inflammatory for the sake of saying Burn Baby Burn.
So RA, you asked for it: you got it. I apologize for clumping you with the likes of Ike. I jumped the gun, and I thank you for being so civil in defending your honor and demanding a retraction. I stand corrected and you stand correct.
[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 1/22/2009).]