Changes

Another point-by-point.  Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction.  Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.  

Another point-by-point.  Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction.  Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.  

   

   

So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre.  If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.

So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre.  If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous.  B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.   

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous.  B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.   

In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them.  I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them.  I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)