Reply #110: nah, there have been dumber

[dweller]

but it ranks right up there with the snarky, snottish responses from people who want to put down, smack down and belittle someone who makes an honest attempt to make a point about why they have decided to choose/not choose a candidate. I think Tab has a point. But for other reasons than some may have not realized.
1- Edwards (and the other candidates) have staff that first check the emails, respond or pass them on i suppose, to their boss for response. There are filters that can sort emails depending on subject, content, etc. that they should be using (if they are tech savvy at all, as they should be).
2- Edwards promised those in attendance, according to the OP, to personally respond from those in attendance. He was in attendance, and wrote him. I could relate that to a candidate saying, 'those of you suffering from <insert your medical condition> and want to hear what i will do for you as president, email me and i will personally write you', and then not. A promise to answer to your specific email due to your situation, or attendance, or whatever reason, should be honored.

3- If i were a staunch Edwards supporter, i'd not be attacking someone who was relying on my candidate of choice's promise, but instead, be supportive and trying to help them get the problem solved by writing said candidate and letting him/her know that their words have an affect, and remedy could be a simple reply. Every vote counts.

Attacking the messenger appears to be so prevelent here now. And it sux.

i guess i'm just another 'petulant child'
dp