<p>I thought his letter was wise and well-reasoned. Of course, this was before I learned that he was a seasoned Republican political operative who once worked for Delay–which has led me to completely change my mind about his letter. What logical person wouldn’t?</p>
<p>HH: I don’t understand your comment.</p>
<p>What more would I need to know to justify my characterization of him as a politico with an agenda in hand. He didn’t send his letter privately, after all, he put it out in the public realm on a website created by one Newt Gingrich’s underlings. Making such a letter public is intended to serve a political purpose, IMO.</p>
<p>I did not post the letter to “debunk” political motivation. I posted it because I thought the man made a good point. I give no credence to political conspiracies in this matter to begin with, so I wouldn’t try to “debunk” political motivation. But please: do enjoy your six degrees of separation games.</p>
<p>“Somehow I doubt that this very wise person considers himself a part of the Gingrich/Rove/neocon conspiracy to hoodwink believers:”</p>
<p>guess that confused us…oppsy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ETA: oops, cgm beat me to it.</p>
<p>great minds think alike</p>
<p>I didn’t check his background before I posted the link, as I’ve explained. I naively never thought to check to see that he was not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. I won’t make that mistake again, as I have learned that Republicans are not allowed to have opinions on the issue, especially if they are seasoned political operatives.</p>
<p>Goodnight, ladies.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, in honor of the late Molly Ivins: The first rule of holes is, when you’re in one, stop digging. Words to remember.</p>
<p>Explain, kluge; I’m still here.
What hole?
Are you and your buddies here honestly THAT paranoid that you think I KNEW FULL WELL that he was a “seasoned political operative” before I posted the link?</p>
<p>Is that what you are saying?</p>
<p>So you are calling me a liar (not for the first time)?</p>
<p>No, I don’t think for a minute that you knew that. I think that it’s fairly bizarre that you would even come up with such a concept.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that you offered up a post by a guy you pointedly asserted wasn’t
and when it was revealed that he is “a former Communications Director for former House Majority Whip Thomas D. DeLay … with experience in managing political communications for presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns” you stridently claimed that
Except that you did, and claiming otherwise just makes you look foolish. The thing about written communication is that everyone can go back and read the words you wrote. Denying that you meant what you said makes you look even more foolish than you would if you just either (a) admit that you were wrong, or (b) just say nothing at all.</p>
<p>Well you have spoken, but I beg to differ.</p>
<p>Prior to my post of “I doubt this …is a part of the…to hoodwink believers” people were saying JUST THAT. It was taken as TRUTH that this was started by a Gingrich/American Enterprise Institute cabal and that the people signing on to the idea that the cross should stay are nothing but the usual STUPID right-wingers, hoodwinked by the neocons and Carl Rove.</p>
<p>I went to the save the cross site; I read this letter and I posted it because to me it summarized the conclusion I had come to regarding the cross. I jumped to the conclusion (not having done a background check on the man) that he probably was a) not a Republican and b) not a “seasoned political operative” with connections to Rove/Delay/American Enterprise and Gingrich. Silly and naive of me, as I have said.</p>
<p>So you are saying, I take it, based on the above that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS AGAINST THE CROSS BEING REMOVED has a POLITICAL MOTIVATION, including me.</p>
<p>Well, sorry. I don’t believe it.</p>
<p>But you know what? I’m not wasting my time finding a person who does not have a political connection of some sort because you wouldn’t believe it, even if I did. Voting for Bush I’m sure would qualify as political motivation in your book. As I said enjoy your six degrees of separation games. If that’s what you want to believe, and it makes your world LOGICAL, knock yourself out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Kluge said this. If you think Kluge said this, it says a lot more about you than about him/her.</p>
<p>Sure, no one said it. kluge wrote that people who wanted the cross to stay were being hoodwinked by Rove/Gingrich; you threw in neocons and connections to Delay. But no one said it.</p>
<p>Talking to you people is like discussing the definition of “is” with Slick Willie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HH, if you honestly can’t see the difference between pointing out that that some people appear to be motivated by politics–as Kluge and I did–and “saying that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS AGAINST THE CROSS BEING REMOVED has a POLITICAL MOTIVATION”–as you accused Kluge of doing–your problems are much, much deeper than naivete.</p>
<p>“Some” does not equal “every”. Not even on Opposite Day.</p>
<p>Well thanks, conyat. I appreciate that.</p>
<p>I shall go off to worship my cross now, if it’s okay with you.</p>
<p>But just one thing. Please do me a favor: you and kluge and cgm look up some people who are against removal of the cross for non-political reasons for me and post them so I have something to look forward to in the morning! Then we will know that not everyone against its removal is politically motivated and that I misinterpreted kluge! I’m always willing to learn, after all! Nighty-night!</p>
<p>Hereshoping, no one needs to dig up anything to disprove whatever misrepresentation you choose to make about them. The burden is on you not to bear false witness.</p>
<p>What I’ve said, and what I believe, is that the people who have suddenly developed an overwhelming concern regarding the change in policy at one college from having a cross in the school chapel which was usually on display but taken down on request, to instead being usually put away and displayed on request, are being consciously, cynically manipulated. The manipulators are playing on their emotions by the creation of a phony “issue” which is designed to make them feel victimized, when in fact nothing needs to be “saved” and no one’s ability to practice their religion is being inhibited in the slightest. </p>
<p>You can bet that right now the right wing propaganda machine is adding their names to their direct mail lists and the “Save the Wren Cross” recruits will find the usual solicitations filling their mailboxes any day now. It’s a phony “issue”, created by people who manipulate public opinion for a living. I’m not saying that the people who bought into the “Save the Cross” schtick are politically motivated - I am saying that they are sincere, and as P.T Barnum said, “there’s one born every minute.”</p>
<p>This change in policy is a slippery slope. One day it’s the cross, the next day its another college asset. Nichol is phony. The assets are real.</p>
<p>I just heard that “Snappy” is the screen name that Gene Nichol uses for his AOL account. Is “GhostofSnappy” a new alias?</p>
<p>Ten characters.</p>