I was reared by a Unitarian (since lapsed) and a lapsed Presbyterian (so thoroughly lapsed that I thought he was a lapsed Jew until he read this post and corrected me). I have observed a range of winter holidays, from the Winter Solstice to Christmas to Hanukah to Pancha Ganapati, and more. However, Christmas is definitely the holiday my family has observed most consistently.
As a child, I thought this was because Christmas was "normal" and we were being "normal" by doing what everybody else was doing. As I got older, I realized two things: first of all, that our celebration of Christmas was not really "normal" by many standards. Secondly, my mother (the organizer and instigator of most major family events) had a very clear reason for liking Christmas.
I think you will understand both of these revelations of mine if I share with you the Christmas story as I learned it.*
"Mommy, what does Christmas mean?"
Once upon a time, there were Christians but no Christmas. Before there was Christmas, there was the feast of Epiphany. It was a celebration of how the Christian God 'shone forth' to mankind in human form, as the baby Jesus. It was held on January 6th. However, in the 4th century CE--
("Were you born then, Daddy?" "Coal in your stocking, kid.")
--in the 4th century, some Christian leaders decided to celebrate Jesus' birthday on December 25th.
("Why, Mommy?" "Be quiet and I'll tell you.")
Alongside the Christians, there lived a people called the Pagans, and the Pagans celebrated the holiday of the winter solstice on December 25th. The Mass of Christ was assigned to December 25th so that the Pagans and the Christians could have a holiday together. Over time, the Christians to the West came to celebrate Christmas, while those in the East continued to celebrate Epiphany, and this gave some people the idea of having a 12-day festival connecting the two. This is why we sing, "The 12 Days Of Christmas."
("Why don't we have Christmas for 12 days?" "Because Mommy doesn't want to have to bake that many cookies.")
"Why do we have a tree for Christmas?"
In the deep of Scandanavian winter, the sun disappears for many days in a row. After it had been dark for over a month, the people would send scounts into the mountains see if they could catch a peek of the sun rising again. When the scounts brought back word of the sun's return there would be a great festival called the Yuletide. This special feast would be held around a fire burning with the Yule log, and other fires would be lit to represent the return of the sun. People would tie apples to the branches of the trees to remind themselves that spring was coming. This is why we decorate our trees with round bulbs, and why some people still decorate their trees with fruit, strings of popcorn, and other real foods.
The Romans also celebrated a winter festival, and theirs was called Saturnalia for their god Saturn. They would have parties in the streets, big meals with lots of friends, and they would exchange presents for good luck. They also decorated their halls with laurel garlands--
("Is that like Laurel and Hardy?" "No, darling, that's like the green stuff Daddy put on the mantlepiece.")
--and they would put up green trees lit with candles. That's why we put garlands around the house and put lights on our trees.
"Why does Uncle Karl always warn me about standing under the mistletoe?"
The Norse people had a goddess named Frigga, who was the Goddess of love, marriage, and fertility. Frigga had a son named Balder who was shot and killed by an arrow made of mistletoe. When Balder was restored to life, Frigga was so happy that she blessed the mistletoe and gave a kiss to anybody who passed under it. Some people believe that each time you kiss under the mistletoe you should pluck one berry from it, and when there are no more berries then there are no more kisses.
"Mommy, is Santa Claus the same thing as Jesus?"**
No, dear. Our Santa Claus is actually a lot of different people rolled up into one. His name comes from the story of Saint Nicholas, a bishop in Turkey who gave presents to the poor, who inspired the Dutch story of Sinterklaas. However, lots of other people have had their own Santas. The Russians have Ded Moroz ("Grandfather Frost"), who delivers presents to children and wears red boots, a fur coat, and a long white beard. A Teutonic god named Odin rode through the air on his eight-legged flying horse, Slepnir, to deliver presents to children. The children would leave a piece of straw out in the field for Slepnir, much like how we leave out milk and cookies for Santa.
("You mean for Daddy." "The kid is onto us, dear.")
Thor, a Germanic god, was also an elderly, plump man in red. He would fly through the air in a chariot drawn by his two white goats, Cracker and Gnasher. He had a palace in "the northland" and would come down the chimney because he was a god of fire.
"Why do we celebrate Christmas, when we aren't Christian?"
Christmas is a holiday that is made up of many different cultures and beliefs. The Christians gave us the name of the holiday. The Romans, the Pagans, and the Scandanavians gave us the decorations and the parties. The Dutch and the Russians and the Norse brought us Santa. Many ancient peoples helped us pick the date for the holiday, as they followed the Sun and the seasons to chart the solstices. When we celebrate Christmas, we are carrying on the traditions of many cultures and many people who have come before us.
We celebrate Christmas because winter can be dark and cold, and we need to remember warmth and brightness and joy. Christmas reminds us that life is still strong even in the dead of winter. Christmas also gives us a chance to celebrate with our loved ones, and a chance to give gifts and thanks to the people who have made our lives brighter.
*Please keep in mind that this is the kiddy version, and does not include the economic and political forces that have so thoroughly hijacked the American holiday season. We all know that the real meaning of Christmas is to support the economy by buying things you neither need nor can afford, and that anybody who doesn't do so is a godless Communist.
**I actually did ask this question, as I suspect many American children do, and I was secretly confused as to why Christians worshipped Jesus when Santa was the one who brought the presents.
41 Comments:
I like that, lapsed Unitarian. However do you know?
May God bless and keep the Unis, for they keep their wedding ceremonies blessedly short.
That is really a beautiful piece of writing. To be associated with the basis of these thoughts is quite an honor. For factual accuracy I would consider myself an agnostic and possible lapsed Presbyterian. I never had one whiff of Judaic dogma. This led to great embarassment the first time I was confronted with a bagel when visiting relatives and just tore into it instead of cutting it in half.
Daddio,
I've never in my life suggested to someone that they pull down their pants, so suffice it to say that I doubt you got off quite as easily as you think.
Hey, was Odin really a Teutonic god, or did Himmler just try to steal him (and a pretty piss poor copy at that)?
Aleks,
Touche.
Ah, but Daddio...you were born to one of "teh Jooz," and thus you are officially a part of the Great Jewish Conspiracy. Mom explained this to me during the same talk in which she covered the many reasons why Hitler would have wiped out our entire family tree. (Daddy's side is Jewish, Mommy's side is nigh-godless libruls, both sides are uppity.)
Nevertheless, I shall alter the passage to reflect your double-lapsed Presbyterian status. I give you the double-lapse because you have so thoroughly lapsed that I've (obviously) never even figured out what religion you declined to practice.
Daddio, are you someone from Author's old home town or a more recent conquest? Just wondering if I might know you.
Author, you can't catch Judaism from your dad. Remember how Hitler also thought his troops wouldn't need coats in Russia?
You sure have met him, Aleks. Daddio is as good as his name: I am sprung from his now-officially-non-Jewish loins. :P
::stunned silence::
To aleks: Yes, Odin is truly Teutonic/Norse, as are Thor, Frigga, and Balder as mentioned by the author. I'm sure Himmler and Hitler made use of Them in their perversion of ancient Pagan customs, however They definitely existed and were revered before the onset of Nazism.
To Author: Another reason for the hanging of fruit is to work Magick. They were reminding the trees of their purpose, and asking them to continue to provide food.
Also, the evergreen trees are so symbolic because of what they are, Ever Green. Before we understood the Scientific Why, the Spiritual/Religious/Cultural Why was assurance from the Gods that They would not let the people perish in the Winter, and that the Earth Mother was not actually dead, but sleeping.
And I'm stealing this to post withouth discretion about eLJay.
Sarah,
I knew Odin and Thor and Frigga and Hel and Balder and Tyr and, let us not forget, Loki were Norse. What I did not know is how much of the overlap between Norse and Teutonic (which is early German, more or less, right?) was real and how much the Nazis invented in trying to tie themselves to coolness and nobility they could never have earned. I'm a big fan of Norse religion, because I like the idea that you should stand with the gods because they are good rather than because they are strong, since in the end (Ragnorak if I'm not mistaken) the gods and the righteous will get the tar beat out of them by the giants. In many ways this seems superior to the grovelling attitude of many self-described "God fearing" monotheists who stand with the Lord for love or fear of His might not love of right.
ZDK,
That is an outstanding post and I think you need to forward this to the ACLU immediately so that they know what they are actually fighting when they attack Christmas. If Christmas were strickly a religious holiday, like Passover and Advent, they would be justified in their complaints about all the public and governmental recognition. (They'd still be wrong, but they'd be justified.) The truth is that the ACLU, and everyone else who wants to eliminate government recognition of Christmas, is not fighting a religious holiday, they're fighting a cultural holiday. My wife's family only goes to church when someone gets married. Her Dad doesn't believe in God. Still, they celebrate Christmas and Easter. Not to honor Jesus (or Jebus, as he's sometimes called), but to celebrate with family. Christmas is no more a religious holiday to them than is Thanksgiving or the 4th of July. Christmas is a cultural holiday where we can get together and show each other how much we care. What could be wrong with that?
CF
Its cool to see someone who has a decent understanding of where Christmas really came from. Its not really a joke when people say Christmas isnt really a christian holiday. Of course half the time they are talking about the mass media marketing of it, but the other half is the true shared nature of the holiday.
As an aside, I started naming computers at work after Norse gods. The last server that went up was balder. (odin, ullr, and others are already up and running). I think it goes well with the Star Trek theme we have going for the workstations :-)
Oh CF. Sometimes I worry.
The ACLU are not "fighting Christmas." They are fighting the pathetic and terrified Christians who are determined to kill everything that Christmas really stands for. The ACLU is defending the Christmas story as I have told it (one of the many reasons I am literally a card-carrying member of the ACLU), by defending the right to honor and cherish ALL of the cultures and religions that contribute to our country and our holidays.
If you want to find people attacking Christians, look to those who want to "put the Christ back in Christmas." They don't just want to put Christ back in, they want to kick everybody else out, and they will tell you so without hesitation.
So here's another Put Up Or Shut Up, CF:
Present the list of cases that you believe demonstrate the ACLU's "anti-Christmas" agenda. I will get to work on a post on this subject, and I will feature your material in the post as a counterpoint.
Author,
You might as well skip our self-declared "wolf"/"NOT A SHEEP"/"truth monster"/"fiscal conservative", who in a year and a half of posting here has never "Put Up", and who you cannot possibly expect to "Shut Up", and complain directly to Saint William O'Reilly, High Defender of Christmas. Change his mind and you'll change CF's.
And since you mentioned the ACLU, would you believe that the Constitution I got from them and the one I got from the 2000 Republican Caucaus are exactly the same? I think the Second Amendment might be subliminably larger in the Republican one and smaller in the ACLU's, but expectations do color perception.
And Sarah, I've always wondered, why do you (and others) spell magick with a k?
'Holiday' Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes' List
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01
What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas.
This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601900.html
Not to put words in Sarahs mouth, but I know she has had trouble getting net access lately so Ill take a stab at the reason untill she can get back. To her, (and many others), "magic" refers to a slight-of-hand style trick. "magick" refers to "the real deal". Not the wand-waving rabbit-appearing stuff, but the idea of some "spirtual" force at work that we cannot see. Some belive that it is possible to have some control over this force (via spells, meditation, etc). The extra 'k' is added just as a distinction between the two.
ZDK,
I don't have a blog. I choose to provide my opinion here. In this case, I complimented you on what I saw as a well-written piece on the value of Christmas as a holiday. I mentioned my opinion on the ACLU's seemingly anti-Christmas stance because it is my opinion. I don't see why I seem to be the only one who has to support every off-the-cuff statement with hard facts. No one else here, including you, has been held to that standard. I guess that is what someone should expect, though, when they hold a dissenting viewpoint. Here are two quick examples related to secular Christmas displays, specifically.
ACLU loses case against Christmas displays:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41469
ACLU threatens lawsuit against "Jingle Bells"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35732
As for Aleks's comments, more big talk from a guy who likes to clam up when he is faced with facts in arguments. You present facts and, rather than respond, he'll type insults until his finger hurts than just ignore you. I'll "put up" some examples: Just look at the October 9th thread. Or the October 11th thread. Or the October 16th thread.
CF
CF: you are more than welcome to present your positions here...that's exactly what I have invited you to do! However, as I pointed out in the post above this one, it would probably be best if you explain WHY you think certain cases show the ACLU discriminating against the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens.
If you don't want to do this you obviously don't have to, and I will certainly still discuss the cases you suggest, but in that situation the only discussion I will be able to offer will be my own interpretation...if you want your position to be part of the "Point-Counterpoint" then you'll have to let me know what your position is!
As for Aleks (or myself) being rude to you...meh. I believe very strongly in free speech, but free speech does not mean "speech that is handled with kidgloves and never attacked, criticized, or insulted."
Aleks: Slushpupie has it right :) I believe that spelling was originally coined by te infamous-but-undeniably-influential Alestair Crowley, but I could be wrong on that point.
Fair enough. There is plenty of talk about both these cases on the web, but I'll summarize the anti-ACLU position.
ACLU loses case against Christmas displays:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41469
"The case centered on Cranston's 2003 opening of its city hall front lawn to private "seasonal and holiday displays," which resulted in various citizens making contributions, both religious and secular."
The ACLU argued that it was unconstitutional for the city government to allow private citizens to construct Christmas displays on public property. The citizens could construct any display they chose. Some chose religious displays, some chose secular displays. This is ridiculous. Is it unconstitutional for the city to grant permission for a religious organization to hold a party in a public park where they set up temporary decorations praising Allah? This is clearly free speech. How can one possibly conclude that this is a religious endorsement?
ACLU threatens lawsuit against "Jingle Bells"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35732
The ACLU said that the school should remove all references to Christmas, religious or secular, including songs such as "Jingle Bells". The ADL also contributed to the threat. When asked for comment, Rabbi Daniel Lapin is reported to have said, “The ACLU is already notorious for its rabid hostility toward America's Judeo-Christian tradition, but the Anti-Defamation League, originally founded to defend Jews, should know better.” I agree.
Regarding Aleks, you're completely right that he has a right to be obnoxious and he has the right to unfounded insults. I also have the right to call them what they are. Your comments have given me the impression that you feel Aleks should be able to insult me any way he chooses, but that I am wrong for criticizing the credibility of his insults and the cowardly and childish way they are delivered. I don't want to exchange insults with him all day, but I can. I get the feeling that you think I'm wrong for responding. For instance, when Aleks said I don't "put up" and I said that he is full of shit and gave examples of when he has backed down after I "put up", you responded by telling me that he has the right to criticize me and seemed to tell me that I am acting as if I want to be treated with kid gloves. If Aleks can insult me with idiotic, inaccurate claims, can't I call his claims idiotic and inaccurate?
CF
CF.
"As for Aleks's comments, more big talk from a guy who likes to clam up when he is faced with facts in arguments. You present facts and, rather than respond, he'll type insults until his finger hurts than just ignore you. I'll "put up" some examples: Just look at the October 9th thread. Or the October 11th thread. Or the October 16th thread."
Do you tell yourself you present facts, it just so happens that your idea of a fact is to claim that I insult the military and not only are you wrong about that but you can't even justify 'honestly' believing it? What have you ever known the facts about? Iraq? Iran? Clinton? Bush? Torture? You even managed to slander the French, which is hard to do. My supposed "source of news", MM? Kerry's supposed use of "hearsay" against the troops? The beliefs of "prominent theologists"? Evolution? Which of us quotes accurately, and which just makes up positions he claims the other has taken and whines when he is quoted accurately? I'd like to see you demonstrate where I "clam up" in response to facts, but first you're going to have to show that you have ever worked with "facts". As for "more big talk", where have I ever indulged in such? You're the "wolf", not me. You're the "NOT A SHEEP" and "truth monster", not me. You're the one who talks about when we'll "lose our republic", not me. Obviously my request for you to justify your claims is simply rhetorical, after a year and a half I know you won't put up or shut up. As for "secular" Christmas, you're going to have to put some actual justification into that (go for it, shock us all). The ACLU opposes state sponsorship of religion, and I believe sometimes they go too far. How that begins to justify your and O'Reilly's "war on christmas" hysteria is beyond me, but then again that seems to be the nature of hysteria, and of O'Reilly and of you.
"I don't see why I seem to be the only one who has to support every off-the-cuff statement with hard facts. "
Why don't you name a few "hard facts" you've supported any of your statements with? Making up convenient but blatantly false "facts" about Tom DeLay being only a recent addition to the Republican leadership, or my supposed agreements with Kerry, or the results of human-monkey mating seem to be about as close as you've ever come. Like O'Reilly you enjoy playing the martyr card, but shouldn't you display some righteousness or even basic intelligence before you claim to be persecuted for its sake?
==
Regarding Aleks, you're completely right that he has a right to be obnoxious and he has the right to unfounded insults. I also have the right to call them what they are. Your comments have given me the impression that you feel Aleks should be able to insult me any way he chooses, but that I am wrong for criticizing the credibility of his insults and the cowardly and childish way they are delivered. I don't want to exchange insults with him all day, but I can. I get the feeling that you think I'm wrong for responding. For instance, when Aleks said I don't "put up" and I said that he is full of shit and gave examples of when he has backed down after I "put up", you responded by telling me that he has the right to criticize me and seemed to tell me that I am acting as if I want to be treated with kid gloves. If Aleks can insult me with idiotic, inaccurate claims, can't I call his claims idiotic and inaccurate?==
What is idiotic or inaccurate about my claims, "wolf"? My asking you to demonstrate that I agree with Kerry on "every single issue", or even just five? My asking you to demonstrate that I am the "sheep" you claim, or that I insult the military as you claim? If you take those requests for justification as implied "claims", that's fair enough, but if they're "idiotic" or "inaccurate", shouldn't you be able to justify your claims that they counter? As for "childish" and "cowardly", you can call me those all you like but I stand behind what I say and justify it with facts. You're the one who claims that your insults are merely "questions" and that you cannot be held responsible for them. As for your claim to have given examples of me backing down in the face of facts, you're going to have to say what those facts are rather than just claiming to have given some over and over again. Is it the "truth monsters" and hiding from the Libby indictement again?
Slush and Sarah,
Thank you.
==As for Aleks's comments, more big talk from a guy who likes to clam up when he is faced with facts in arguments. You present facts and, rather than respond, he'll type insults until his finger hurts than just ignore you. I'll "put up" some examples: Just look at the October 9th thread. Or the October 11th thread. Or the October 16th thread.
==
Declare mission accomplished and accuse me of "big talk" all you like
"truth monster", on which of these have you actually used facts?
October 9: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6316887&postID=112889137202310643
October 11: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6316887&postID=112904978507778776
October 16: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6316887&postID=112948899771999081
That used to work. Slush, remind me again how to post links?
"Which of us quotes accurately, and which just makes up positions he claims the other has taken and whines when he is quoted accurately?"
I quote accurately while you make claims (such as the one in the quote above) and whine (as you are in the quote above). Actually, cone to think of it, we've both whined. But you definitely are the one whose made up positions and quoted inaccurately. Hope that helps!
"I'd like to see you demonstrate where I "clam up" in response to facts, but first you're going to have to show that you have ever worked with "facts". "
I already supported my position with facts. I presented three examples. How many do you need? Give me a number.
"How that begins to justify your and O'Reilly's "war on christmas" hysteria is beyond me, but then again that seems to be the nature of hysteria, and of O'Reilly and of you."
Thanks for this example! I wanted an example to show how you "make up positions [you] claim the other has taken." I was afraid I'd have to dig for one, but you provided a great one right here in this post. Thanks! I don't believe the ACLU is waging war on Christmas, I believe the ACLU is certainly a secular organization that has argued that free speech rights of Christians should be denied, but they have also argued on behalf of Chistian free-speech rights on occasion, too. The ACLU wants religious reference out of the public arena. Their motivations can be theorized, but I don't believe they want to outlaw Christianity or forbid the celebration of Christmas. I don't think there's a "war". You made up that position of mine. Thanks again for that great example.
"Why don't you name a few "hard facts" you've supported any of your statements with?"
I'll give two examples. 1. I provided several court instances where I felt the ACLU had been anti-Christian or anti-Christmas. 2. I provided three examples of where you'd clammed up when facts had been presented. If you need more instances where I've presented hard facts, let me know the number.
CF
"What is idiotic or inaccurate about my claims, "wolf"? "
Here is the claim I was refering to in that post:
"You might as well skip our self-declared "wolf"/"NOT A SHEEP"/"truth monster"/"fiscal conservative", who in a year and a half of posting here has never "Put Up", and who you cannot possibly expect to "Shut Up", and complain directly to Saint William O'Reilly, High Defender of Christmas."
Why is it inaccurate? I never called myself a truth monster, so to say I'm a "self-declared" truth monster would be inaccurate (and probably a lie). I have used facts and references several times (I gave you two examples in the last post) so it is inaccurate to say in a year-and-a-half I have never "Put up" facts even a single time. That's what is inaccurate. Why are they idiotic? Well, it depends on your definition of idiotic. As it's used here, it means that the claims are so blatantly untrue that it defies logic that one could believe them. Why would I call myself a "truth monster"? Why would you believe that you could know ever discussion I took part in over a year-and-a-half time frame and that in ever discussion I didn't present a single fact even one time? Why would you believe that? It defies logic. The claim is idiotic.
CF
"Declare mission accomplished and accuse me of "big talk" all you like
"truth monster", on which of these have you actually used facts?"
All of them. I'll give an example of such facts for each.
October 9:
I said that most evolutionary scientists are not religious. The source I provided showed a scientist being quoted in support of my position. Whether you agree with my position or not, that is factual evidence in support of my position.
October 11:
You asked me to show where someone had said that Republicans think that those against the war are traitors. I provided two examples of someone making such a claim. You decided at that point not to respond. The facts were "put up"; you "shut up".
October 16:
You asked me if your summary of my position was unfair. I said it was and referenced statements previously made that showed why your summary was erroneous. I showed specific, undeniable references about my statements and the statements they were responding to. The references were not open to interpretation, they were factual. You didn't respond after I "put up" said references.
CF
1. =="Which of us quotes accurately, and which just makes up positions he claims the other has taken and whines when he is quoted accurately?"
I quote accurately while you make claims (such as the one in the quote above) and whine (as you are in the quote above). Actually, cone to think of it, we've both whined. But you definitely are the one whose made up positions and quoted inaccurately. Hope that helps!==
Really? Since you probably claim you're telling the truth here, where are those accurate quotes about Halliburton, about wanting no Democrats blamed for the handling of Katrina, about all those issues on which I agreed with Kerry, about Evolution having "proof positive", about Author wanting you to be insulted without 'responding', or any of those positions you have claimed I or she held without being able to produce any words of mine or hers that even imply such a stance?
2. =="I'd like to see you demonstrate where I "clam up" in response to facts, but first you're going to have to show that you have ever worked with "facts". "
I already supported my position with facts. I presented three examples. How many do you need? Give me a number.==
How about 1? One issue on which you've used facts and I didn't respond to them.
3. ==Thanks for this example! I wanted an example to show how you "make up positions [you] claim the other has taken." I was afraid I'd have to dig for one, but you provided a great one right here in this post. Thanks! I don't believe the ACLU is waging war on Christmas, I believe the ACLU is certainly a secular organization that has argued that free speech rights of Christians should be denied, but they have also argued on behalf of Chistian free-speech rights on occasion, too. The ACLU wants religious reference out of the public arena. Their motivations can be theorized, but I don't believe they want to outlaw Christianity or forbid the celebration of Christmas. I don't think there's a "war". You made up that position of mine. Thanks again for that great example.==
No honesty, no integrity, no self improvement and no shame. Are you now claiming that you didn't say the ACLU was anti-Christian?
==4. "Why don't you name a few "hard facts" you've supported any of your statements with?"
I'll give two examples. 1. I provided several court instances where I felt the ACLU had been anti-Christian or anti-Christmas.==
So you provided supposed evidence that the ACLU is "anti-Christian" and "anti-Christmas", but you have no more integrity than to claim that I made up your position about the ACLU's war on Christmas. What do you call it? A scrimmage?
5. == 2. I provided three examples of where you'd clammed up when facts had been presented. If you need more instances where I've presented hard facts, let me know the number.==
Just one.
==6. Why is it inaccurate? I never called myself a truth monster, so to say I'm a "self-declared" truth monster would be inaccurate (and probably a lie).==
"Why do you talk about Halliburton so much? Is it like a security blanky? When you hold it close to you do you just feel safe? I haven't misquoted you on Halliburton. Ever. But if you want to snuggle up next to Halliburton at night because it keeps the evil truth monsters away, feel free. After all, it's always easier to argue about what I said a year ago then the current issue, right?
XOXO,
CF" October 28 thread
So no, I'm not the one lying.
7. ==I have used facts and references several times (I gave you two examples in the last post) so it is inaccurate to say in a year-and-a-half I have never "Put up" facts even a single time. That's what is inaccurate.==
Claiming that opposition to teaching Intelligent Design is proof of atheism is not a "fact" and the extraordinary reach of your stupidity and sheepishness is shown by your inability to see that.
8. ==. Why are they idiotic? Well, it depends on your definition of idiotic. As it's used here, it means that the claims are so blatantly untrue that it defies logic that one could believe them. Why would I call myself a "truth monster"?==
For the same reason you called yourself a "wolf", I imagine. I don't say things like that, and I don't really care why you do, but you do. But I'm not surprised that you call me a liar for sticking to the facts.
9. ==Why would you believe that you could know ever discussion I took part in over a year-and-a-half time frame and that in ever discussion I didn't present a single fact even one time? Why would you believe that? It defies logic. The claim is idiotic.==
Did I say that? If I had, so far you haven't demonstrated that it would be wrong, but did I really say that?
10. ==
October 9:
I said that most evolutionary scientists are not religious. The source I provided showed a scientist being quoted in support of my position. Whether you agree with my position or not, that is factual evidence in support of my position.==
Opposition the substitution of science with "Intelligent Design" is not proof of atheism, so you have in fact offered no fact, but only a glimpse at the extremes of your stupidity.
11. ==October 11:
You asked me to show where someone had said that Republicans think that those against the war are traitors. I provided two examples of someone making such a claim. You decided at that point not to respond. The facts were "put up"; you "shut up".==
You did not. The Administration and its allies (Limbaugh, Chambliss, the SBVT, that Representative who took the lead against Murtha, you) try to portray opposition to Bush as contempt for American and our armed forces. That is indesputable, but you have not put up any facts that anyone has said rank-and-file Republicans share your view. I also wonder if you appreciate the extreme hypocrisy and cowardice of your claim that I "shut up" when you had posted on a long ago thread and not announced it on a current one, as I had the courage and courtesy to do when I posted. I particularly remember you abandoning two threads halfway through responding to avoid answering for your sheepish and blatantly false claim that DeLay only recently became a leader. You claimed that doing so said nothing negative about you, but I'm a coward for not answering claims made on hidden (no longer visible from the front page) threads that you did not announce?
12. October 16:
==You asked me if your summary of my position was unfair. I said it was and referenced statements previously made that showed why your summary was erroneous. I showed specific, undeniable references about my statements and the statements they were responding to. The references were not open to interpretation, they were factual. You didn't respond after I "put up" said references.==
I refuted those supposed "facts" and it is you who hasn't responded, but you claim that I'm hiding? I guess that sums you up pretty well.
1. "...makes up positions..."
I didn't make up a single one of those positions. If you believe I did, could you provide a "shred of evidence" that I did?
2. One situation where you stopped responding after I presented facts:
October 9th thread. I presented evidence and you didn't respond until after being called out.
3. "No honesty, no integrity, no self improvement and no shame. Are you now claiming that you didn't say the ACLU was anti-Christian?"
Don't change the subject. You said, "How that begins to justify your and O'Reilly's "war on christmas"..." I didn't say, nor do I believe, that the ACLU is waging a war on Christmas. You made that up.
4. **=="Why don't you name a few "hard facts" you've supported any of your statements with?"
I'll give two examples. 1. I provided several court instances where I felt the ACLU had been anti-Christian or anti-Christmas.==
So you provided supposed evidence that the ACLU is "anti-Christian" and "anti-Christmas", but you have no more integrity than to claim that I made up your position about the ACLU's war on Christmas. What do you call it? A scrimmage?**
4a. So you are admitting I've supported that position with facts, correct?
4b. I disagree with O'Reilly's opinions regarding the "war on Christmas". I say "Happy Hollidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to customers if I'm not sure of their religion. My company does not force or encourage me to do so, it's my decision. If it were a war, O'Reilly would be shooting at me. It's not a war, not a scrimmage. If you want it to have a title, come up with one.
5. **==...If you need more instances where I've presented hard facts, let me know the number.==
Just one.**
Didn't you just admit that I gave fact in point 4?
6. Truth monster
The quote you provided shows no evidence that I called myself a truth monster. I used the phrase, but didn't associate it with myself in any way. Please either provide some evidence that I did use it to refer to myself or that I used the term some other time to refer to myself.
7. "Claiming that opposition to teaching Intelligent Design is proof of atheism is not a "fact"..."
Another made up position. The quote I provided supported my position. Even if that support is completely inadequate (which it isn't) it still was factual evidence in support of my position. Why do you disagree with that statement? Do you have evidence or facts that contradict this claim?
8. I didn't call myself a truth monster. Provide evidence to prove you didn't lie.
9. Did you really say that I've never presented a fact?
You said I'd never "put up". You used that specific qoute. If by "put up" you did not mean "presented a fact" please provide the source for the quote "put up" and explain what you meant. If you did, be a man and admit it.
10. October 9th
"Opposition the substitution of science with "Intelligent Design" is not proof of atheism, so you have in fact offered no fact,"
What? What is your definition of a "fact"? I would call it "a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+fact). It was a fact. It is in the context of those debates that you can choose to argue value of that fact or its relevence to my claim. That's what lawyers do in courtrooms all day. (i.e. prosecutor: "It's a fact that this guy owns a 357 magnum, the same gun used in the crime." defense attorney: "He may own a 357 magnum, but the gun cannot be conclusively tied to the crime and there are more than 500 357 magnums registered to citizens of this county.") Facts don't always prove points, they often support points. Provide some evidence mine was not a fact.
11. October 11th.
I provided two quotes where someone indicated that Republicans think those against the war are traitors. Both are from ZDK. Provide some evidence that these are not quotes or that they are not by someone.
12. October 16th.
Did I or did I not provide facts about my statements? Provide some evidence that these are not facts about my statements. At least define "facts" and reference a source.
CF
By the way, my response to the 10/16 thread has been posted since yesterday afternoon at 4:20 PST. That's 17 minutes after your post here, so I couldn't have seen your post before I responded. Just wanted to get that on the record.
CF
==1. "...makes up positions..."
I didn't make up a single one of Haliburton was wrongly given a contract in Iraq. That was easy. Now would you please list 5 places where you side with Bush and not Kerry?"
Citizen F | 11.04.04 - 7:10 pm
Wow, that was easy. Providing evidence is easy when something's true, even you could probably do it.
2. ==2. One situation where you stopped responding after I presented facts:
October 9th thread. I presented evidence and you didn't respond until after being called out. ==
You didn't present much that could be called "evidence", and did you announce on an easily visible thread that you had posted again? Some sense of honor you have.
3. ==Don't change the subject. You said, "How that begins to justify your and O'Reilly's "war on christmas"..." I didn't say, nor do I believe, that the ACLU is waging a war on Christmas. You made that up.== "I provided several court instances where I felt the ACLU had been anti-Christian or anti-Christmas." CF, above.
==4a. So you are admitting I've supported that position with facts, correct?==
No, only that you claimed to have. Oddly enough you just claimed never to have taken that position at all. I guess that's not really so odd though.
==4b. I disagree with O'Reilly's opinions regarding the "war on Christmas". I say "Happy Hollidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to customers if I'm not sure of their religion. My company does not force or encourage me to do so, it's my decision. If it were a war, O'Reilly would be shooting at me. It's not a war, not a scrimmage. If you want it to have a title, come up with one.==
So you agree with O'Reilly regarding the ACLU's anti-Christmas campaign, but you disagree about whether that campaign should be called a war. I don't think you're being as clever as you do, but I accept the distinction. But if there was a war, would either you or O'Reilly really be doing the shooting?
5. ==Didn't you just admit that I gave fact in point 4?==
No. If everything you claimed was true I'd agree with John Kerry on "every single issue" and the war in Iraq would be making Americans safe.
==6. Truth monster
The quote you provided shows no evidence that I called myself a truth monster. I used the phrase, but didn't associate it with myself in any way. Please either provide some evidence that I did use it to refer to myself or that I used the term some other time to refer to myself.==
So you called yourself a "wolf", a "NOT A SHEEP" and a "fiscal conservative", but "truth monster was not a reference to yourself. Ok, then who/what are the "truth monsters" I'm so scared of?
==7. "Claiming that opposition to teaching Intelligent Design is proof of atheism is not a "fact"..."
Another made up position. The quote I provided supported my position. Even if that support is completely inadequate (which it isn't) it still was factual evidence in support of my position. Why do you disagree with that statement? Do you have evidence or facts that contradict this claim?==
The quote you provided did not support your claim that prominent theologians and scientists agree that religion and science are mutually exclusive, nor did it support your newer weaselly claim that scientists are not religious unless you're also claiming that opposition to "Intelligent Design" is proof of atheism. I admit that scientists are hostile to teaching ID in schools, good for them. What does that have to do with supporting your claim?
8. ==I didn't call myself a truth monster. Provide evidence to prove you didn't lie.== "You talk about fair and balanced and call Fox prejudice but cite an article from Reuters that mentions every possible question in Bush's remarks and none of the questions in Kerry's remarks. I watched MSNBC and Fox News within seconds of each other after the debate and they had identical commentary. They listed the exact same misstatements by each candidate. The commentators on both stations thought Kerry won the debate. You don't care about fair or balanced. You hate fairness. You despise balance. You want one-sided articles that say "hate the other guy and love your guy." You will always be able to find those articles on both sides of the aisle, and they will all be worthless. I included the Afghani population in a post that meant to mention Afghanistan. The post said how unimportant the number was, regardless of its size. Yet you focus on it because you hate fairness and you hate balance. I’m so glad I have an open mind. I couldn't live like you. I'm not a sheep. I'm a wolf."
Citizen F | 10.11.04 - 1:27 pm
Now you provide some evidence that you didn't lie.
==9. Did you really say that I've never presented a fact?
You said I'd never "put up". You used that specific qoute. If by "put up" you did not mean "presented a fact" please provide the source for the quote "put up" and explain what you meant. If you did, be a man and admit it.==
Provide the quote and context, you whiny little hypocrite. You call my uncle a child molester and tell us about your wife's poor behavior for some incomprehensible reason, and you lecture about being a man?
10. ==Facts don't always prove points, they often support points. Provide some evidence mine was not a fact.== Are you actually bragging about having provided a quote denouncing Intelligent Design as science as a "fact" in an argument about whether theologians and scientists believe religion and science are mutually exclusive? If you're going to dumb it down to that level, and I guess you have to, I agree that it's a fact that scientists are opposed to teaching Intelligent Design as if it were science. Congratulations.
==11. October 11th.
I provided two quotes where someone indicated that Republicans think those against the war are traitors. Both are from ZDK. Provide some evidence that these are not quotes or that they are not by someone.==
You'll never manage logic, but at least try to learn English. "Provide some evidence that these are not quotes or that they are not by someone."? Provide some evidence that I claimed either.
==12. October 16th.
Did I or did I not provide facts about my statements? Provide some evidence that these are not facts about my statements. At least define "facts" and reference a source==
I accept your definition. What were those supposed "facts"? What policy were you and Rice defending and Author attacking if the war in Iraq wasn't at issue? Has someone relevent objected to attacking the Taliban? So no, I don't see much in the way of facts from you.
13. ==By the way, my response to the 10/16 thread has been posted since yesterday afternoon at 4:20 PST. That's 17 minutes after your post here, so I couldn't have seen your post before I responded. Just wanted to get that on the record.==
Not important to me, you're the one who makes a big deal about me supposedly hiding from your mighty hidden posts.
1. I know that I inaccurately stated that you disagreed with that Halliburton contract. That doesn't prove anything. I didn't make that claim up, I inaccuratly associated it with you. I told you that a long time ago. Provide a "shred of evidence" that it was made up, not just that it was stated.
2. I responded quickly after you did in the October 9th thread. I provided what can ONLY be defined as evidence and you didn't respond. Those are the facts. The reason you didn't respond can only be theorized and cannot be proven, but I will not destroy current discussions by typing a notice every time I type in an old thread.
3. Provide some evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who feels the ACLU is anti-Christmas also feels that a "war on Christmas" is being waged. I will respond with evidence of my own, citing those who believe their is a war on Christmas, so be prepared.
4a. Do you believe I haven't supported that Anti-Christmas theory with facts?
4b. I don't think it's fair to say I agree with O'Reilly about the ACLU's anti-Christmas campaign, because I don't think such a campaign exists. That is one reason it isn't a "war". In a war, according to the loose definition intended, there are two sides fighting organized campaigns. I don't think the ACLU has a secret anti-Christmas focus group scouring the country for places to attack, I feel they have an anti-Christmas bias that is a direct result of their secular agenda (which is where I do agree with O'Reilly).
6. As I intended the original statement? "Truth monsters" are monsters of truth. The current discussion. Facts. Evidence. Reality. I meant that you hide from discussions which employ facts and evidence by bringing up past discussions. ***Evidence: You won't argue a position on the ACLU, you instead argue whether I have called myself something.
7. The claim I was supporting is that evolutionary scientists don't, in general, believe their theories agree with religion. ID is religion. If you would have resonded to that discussion, we could have debated the relevance of my evidence. Whether it's relevent or not, it is evidence.
8. Is that the best you can do? You can't defend yourself at all? Any evidence will suffice, can't you find any?
9. Hit CTRL+F and type "put up". The first occurence is clearly where you were quoting because you reference ZDK your comment, the second is your use. Now, did you mean something else when you said that? If you did, tell me what it was. If not, be a man and admit it.
10. Thank you for admitting that I have indeed used a fact on this site in the past year-and-a-half.
11.
I said:
You asked me to show where someone had said that Republicans think that those against the war are traitors. I provided two examples of someone making such a claim. You decided at that point not to respond. The facts were "put up"; you "shut up".==
You said:
"You did not."
I am simply asking you to prove that I didn't present those two examples. You said I didn't. I see them on the page. Is your computer screwed up or something? Do you not see two quotes by ZDK in the 10/11 thread?
12. October 16th.
==Did I or did I not provide facts about my statements? Provide some evidence that these are not facts about my statements. At least define "facts" and reference a source==
"I accept your definition. What were those supposed "facts"?"
I listed them out specifically in that thread and encourage you to revisit it. For instance, fact: my statements included Iraq, but not only Iraq. That is a fact. Do we agree on that?
CF
==1. I know that I inaccurately stated that you disagreed with that Halliburton contract. That doesn't prove anything. I didn't make that claim up, I inaccuratly associated it with you. I told you that a long time ago. Provide a "shred of evidence" that it was made up, not just that it was stated.==
Read what you're claiming. Read it again. Then remind yourself that you are honest and "intelligent". And that you claimed I thought Kerry was right on "every single issue" proves nothing because you really meant that . . . that . . .? You didn't make up that bit about us not wanting any Democrats blamed for the Katrina response because Howard Dean would have preferred it that way and you only misattributed that desire?
==2. I responded quickly after you did in the October 9th thread. I provided what can ONLY be defined as evidence and you didn't respond. Those are the facts. The reason you didn't respond can only be theorized and cannot be proven, but I will not destroy current discussions by typing a notice every time I type in an old thread.==
Very noble, in your way. You didn't think that it would "destroy" current discussions to claim that I insult the military or "ask" if my uncle molested me, but pointing out that you had made a post before blaming me for not noticing it would. And here I thought you were without a sense of honor.
==3. Provide some evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who feels the ACLU is anti-Christmas also feels that a "war on Christmas" is being waged. I will respond with evidence of my own, citing those who believe their is a war on Christmas, so be prepared.==
I've been waiting well over a year for you to provide some evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that I agree with Kerry on "every single issue", that I insult the military, or that I am a "sheep", so that demand is pretty sad and hypocritical, but having a bar almost infinitely higher for myself than for you I will provide it. You use O'Reilly's rhetoric about the ACLU being anti-Christmas and anti-Christian and having a campaign against Christmas, but if you claim now that you differentiate yourself from O'Reilly by not labelling that alleged campaign a "war" I accept that. Is it a police action against Christmas? An intervention against Christmas? My guess is that you agreed with what Governor G.W.Bush said about nation building, so I won't ask if it's that against Christmas.
4a. Do you believe I haven't supported that Anti-Christmas theory with facts?
Which of your "sources of news" are you referring to?
==4b. I don't think it's fair to say I agree with O'Reilly about the ACLU's anti-Christmas campaign, because I don't think such a campaign exists. That is one reason it isn't a "war". In a war, according to the loose definition intended, there are two sides fighting organized campaigns. I don't think the ACLU has a secret anti-Christmas focus group scouring the country for places to attack, I feel they have an anti-Christmas bias that is a direct result of their secular agenda (which is where I do agree with O'Reilly).==
So it's an unplanned nonwar without major combat operations? Yeah, those can be very messy. How does that "secular agenda" pan with the ACLU's frequent defense of religious expression? Or haven't you been, with fairness and balance, informed of that?
5. ==Didn't you just admit that I gave fact in point 4?==
No. If everything you claimed was true I'd agree with John Kerry on "every single issue" and the war in Iraq would be making Americans safe.
==6a. As I intended the original statement? "Truth monsters" are monsters of truth. The current discussion. Facts. Evidence. Reality. I meant that you hide from discussions which employ facts and evidence by bringing up past discussions. ***Evidence: You won't argue a position on the ACLU, you instead argue whether I have called myself something.==
"'Truth monsters' are monsters of truth." I knew there was a reason that since "your ilk" took over the Republican Party I haven't heard much about the importance of Americans knowing English. So you do call yourself a "wolf," but you do not call yourself a "truth monster", and that the truth monster was the current issue, which at the time you specifically said was the Libby indictment, but then you said I wasn't scared of that. And now you're saying that it, not you, was the "truth monster" I was hiding from. But you're honest and "intelligent".
6b ==***Evidence: You won't argue a position on the ACLU, you instead argue whether I have called myself something.==
Your relationship with "Evidence" is about as estranged and hostile as your relationship with truth, which I suppose is logical. Since you're presenting that as your evidence, have I really refused to "argue a position on the ACLU"? You can, obviously, convince yourself of anything, but that's just bizarre. Not really surprising though.
7a. ==The claim I was supporting is that evolutionary scientists don't, in general, believe their theories agree with religion. ID is religion.==
ID is politics. That scientists don't want to stick a contrived and scientifically unsupported and hybrid of Creationism and evolution into science classrooms does not make them atheists, nor does claiming otherwise mean you're using "evidence".
7b == If you would have resonded to that discussion, we could have debated the relevance of my evidence.==
Are you telling the truth about me not responding? What's the link?
7c. ==Whether it's relevent or not, it is evidence. ==
I guess it would be silly to expect more of you. Yes, it was evidence that many scientists despise ID, which despite your typically idiotic claim to the contrary is not identical to religion ("The claim I was supporting is that evolutionary scientists don't, in general, believe their theories agree with religion. ID is religion."). By your definition, what does not constitute evidence?
==8. Is that the best you can do? You can't defend yourself at all? Any evidence will suffice, can't you find any?==
Plenty of evidence: "I'm a wolf". You claim that I am "probably" lying because you've now suddenly started saying that you weren't referring to yourself when you talked about me hiding from "truth monsters", even though you have a history of assigning the title "wolf" to yourself, and you've already claimed that the "current issue" of the time (the Libby indictment) was not the "truth monster" you were accusing me of hiding from, and I need to defend myself? Ok big talker, what was the truth monster then, if not the Libby indictment and not yourself? And if your sudden announcement that you did not mean yourself by "truth monster" is indeed truthful, how are we supposed to know when you are granting yourself silly titles and when you're not?
9a==. Hit CTRL+F and type "put up". The first occurence is clearly where you were quoting because you reference ZDK your comment, the second is your use. Now, did you mean something else when you said that? If you did, tell me what it was. If not, be a man and admit it.==
Oh, so your claim is that when I said "You might as well skip our self-declared "wolf"/"NOT A SHEEP"/"truth monster"/"fiscal conservative", who in a year and a half of posting here has never "Put Up", and who you cannot possibly expect to "Shut Up", and complain directly to Saint William O'Reilly, High Defender of Christmas. Change his mind and you'll change CF's." what I must have meant was that you had never posted a single fact. Fortunately, unlike you, I don't usually deal in pompous and ridiculous absolutes. I meant that you don't support your arguments with facts, whatever it just so happens that you tell yourself.
9b You call my uncle a child molester and tell us about your wife's poor behavior for some incomprehensible reason, and you lecture about being a man?
10a. ==Facts don't always prove points, they often support points. Provide some evidence mine was not a fact.== Are you actually bragging about having provided a quote denouncing Intelligent Design as science as a "fact" in an argument about whether theologians and scientists believe religion and science are mutually exclusive? If you're going to dumb it down to that level, and I guess you have to, I agree that it's a fact that scientists are opposed to teaching Intelligent Design as if it were science. Congratulations.
10b ==Thank you for admitting that I have indeed used a fact on this site in the past year-and-a-half.==
Was that an admission?
==11. I said:
You asked me to show where someone had said that Republicans think that those against the war are traitors. I provided two examples of someone making such a claim. You decided at that point not to respond. The facts were "put up"; you "shut up".==
You said:
"You did not."
I am simply asking you to prove that I didn't present those two examples. You said I didn't. I see them on the page. Is your computer screwed up or something? Do you not see two quotes by ZDK in the 10/11 thread?==
In neither of those "examples" did Author claim that anything approaching all Republicans thought that antiwar people are traitors (for one thing many Republicans are against the war). You can congratulate yourself for having indeed posted two quotes, but since they don't say anything about all Republicans they're hardly evidence of your point, any more than an article demonstrating that scientists despise ID is proof of their atheism. It's not my computer that's screwed up, and sadly your problem is probably not as easily fixed.
==12. October 16th.
==Did I or did I not provide facts about my statements? Provide some evidence that these are not facts about my statements. At least define "facts" and reference a source==
"I accept your definition. What were those supposed "facts"?"
I listed them out specifically in that thread and encourage you to revisit it. For instance, fact: my statements included Iraq, but not only Iraq. That is a fact. Do we agree on that?==
Before going further I have to ask again which statements referred to Iraq and which did not.
1. Am I to assume you can't provide a shred of evidence that the position was "made up"?
2. Aleks, if you choose not to respond in a thread then that is your choice. If you are interested in the thread I assume you'll look back to it. If not, I assume you'll ignore it. *Fact: I posted evidence, you didn't respond. You can't prove you didn't notice I'd posted the evidence and I can't prove you did. But the facts are the facts.
3. "You use O'Reilly's rhetoric about the ACLU being anti-Christmas and anti-Christian and having a campaign against Christmas..." I specifically said that the ACLU had no such campaign. I'm guessing you just misread my post, so I won't call that a blatant lie. After all, you do seem to be conceeding that I don't indeed believe there's a "war". Thus, you indeed made up the position.
4a. I asked you a question, please answer it. Do you believe I haven't supported that Anti-Christmas theory with facts?
4b. "So it's an unplanned nonwar without major combat operations? "
If you say so. I'm not labeling it.
5. No, you didn't say that I'd given evidence in the ACLU matter?
6. All I can tell you is the truth. I meant that you were afraid to debate the current issue and would rather debate what I said in the past and you are proving that again right now. Refer to my previous statement about the Libby indictment, they do not contradict what I'm saying now. I won't discuss them here, post in that thread if you'd like.
7a. It was still evidence. We can debate the value of that evidence in that thread.
7b. Go back to those October threads, I provided the links earlier.
7c. Please provide for me a definition of evidence or just stop bringing it up. I provided my definition of a fact and you excepted it. Provide for me a definition of evidence.
8. When did I say that the current issue was not the truth monster? Provide the FULL SENTENCE where I said that.
9a. So you meant that I don't USUALLY support my positions with facts but I have before? Is that what you are now claiming you meant?
9b. If you aren't familiar with the term "be a man" than I suggest you look up the common usage.
10a. Do you admit that I used a fact in an attempt to support my position (even if you feel the attempt failed)?
11. I didn't claim that anyone said "all Republicans " did anything. I wasn't supporting that position. I don't deal in absolutes like that because it's idiotic. I presented facts supporting my position. If you'd like to discuss the value of those facts, we can do so in that thread.
12. What? My statements included Iraq, but not only Iraq. I'll reiterate in case you have trouble reading: In addition to Iraq, my statements referred to other nations.
CF
Mommy, why are crazy people always fighting at Christmastime?
Post a Comment
<< Home