Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

> I didn’t say that.

That's why I said it *appears* to be what you're saying, and asked for
clarification.

> Peter commented that people are arguing over her words.
>
> I am just pointing out that as point of interest it is unremarkable
> give their history of attacking anything she does.

Well, no, you *didn't* just point it out as unremarkable. You explicitly said
Peter's statement was "pointless."

**it is.  He said that as proof of his position, but the reality is that the
'proof' is proof of nothing given the broader circumstances.

 And I see now that you either didn't mean what you wrote, or can't justify what
it entails.

**nice that you can see that, but I meant what I said, and explained the
context.

 With an position that amorphous, I can't help but wonder why you'd argue the
point in the first place.

**same reason you do, apparently.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot