Reply #88: point by point

I just don't understand why it is so important.

Your curiousity isn't aroused when it's Kerry who is being attacked, or any other Dem for that matter.

You have no way of knowing if my curiousity is aroused or not when Kerry is attacked. All you know is that I commented on it with Dean.

Two different things. That is, I'm not saying people don't have the right to attack Dean.

But no one has said that people don't have a right to attack Dean, so your defense of that right is nothing more than a straw man. You are refuting an argument that no one is making.

Seems to me this exchange that follows in italics implies that you think I think it's wrong to attack Dean and ok to attack Kerry, since it was a reply to my question. If you're going to claim you didn't mean to have that implication, fine.


59. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Dean?


what is so hard about giving him some credit?
He's doing a lot for the Democratic party.
He seems to have put his ego aside for the moment.
I think his example is a good one for us to follow.


65. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Kerry?


Funny how when people attack Kerry, you defend them citing free speech and the need for dissent, ideas which seem to have since evaporated.

*******

I'm not surprised though, you use this rhetorical device constantly.

I did not bring up the issue of people's right to criticize; You did. Many times. Funny how you never get tired of it until I used it.




Again here you are saying I brought up the right of people to criticize which I did not do. I didn't say anything about their right to criticize. I did not bring up people's right to criticize Again, that is a complete misrepresentation.I categorically deny ever having said anywhere that people do not have the right to criticize. I consider that to be slander. All I asked was why people still felt it necessary to go over the old ground of whether Dean should have been the nominee. The original poster may have the opinion that Dean should have been the nominee and may have brought it up, but it just looked to me like the post was contending that Dean had it right (implying of course that he should have been the nominee) But you can think someone had it right and not think they should be the nominee.


Of course I can be tired of rhetorical devices in others, that I engage in at times. I'm not perfect by any means.