<p>FS, </p>
<p>REPLY-- Method 1, the SBmom way:</p>
<p>Your STYLE OF ARGUMENT was being attacked by Laura50, not you. You were being called to task for your tone, your one-sidedness, and, in my follow-up post explaining my agreement, for your inaccurate parsing of others’ words. Your attempt at “fun and biting” was not fun enough; it looked ‘snide and vicious.’ As a writer, your tone did not come across, and you were called on it. </p>
<p>My gripe, then, was with the STYLE and the CONTENT of your posts, and I offered evidence, citing your false implication that a previous poster had equated Cindy Sheehan with Ghandi. Nothing ad hominem about it. </p>
<p>OTOH, you toss off words like foolish, rude, condescending, with no evidence except your own pique… strange double standard FS. Pot & the kettle…?. </p>
<p>REPLY-- Method 2, the FountainSiren way:</p>
<p>Some of us prefer an actual debate, with feints, thrusts, and parries, and rapier wit to be sure, but without crude, random slashing. We like the gentlemanly nod of the head at the opponent, and prefer an economy of motion, with the goal of touching the heart…</p>
<p>Coming, as you do, from the World Wrestling Federation school of polemics, with its cartoonish heroes and villians howling and throwing eachother to the ground, it must be difficult to practice, or even recognize, such subtlety. It’s much easier to wolf down your steroids, pump some iron, strap on your metallic belt, and careen through a charade matchup with a pre-determined conclusion. After all, it’s lots of fun to stomp on somebody when they’re prohibited (by custom or law) from stomping back.</p>