<p>I have followed your posts for a good amount of time on this forum and you’re always on a hair trigger, searching for insults and offenses to set you off. I personally don’t choose to go through life like that. But that’s just me. </p>
<p>In general, your posts are some of the most consistently caustic I’ve ever seen on this forum, and because of that, I try to stay far away from most of the threads you are posting on. If someone’s commentary is about a very public figure, I am slow to take offense. As I was told so very many times on a recent thread, IF you “put yourself out there,” you’re fair game in a sense, and you can expect to take your fair share of abuse. </p>
<p>Even so, the overreaction to the OP has been quite stunning…and telling. Whatever hh said was not issued to you directly, nor do I think that it will greatly impact anyone’s political decisions one way or the other. Therefore, to take her to task repeatedly for it is simply overkill.</p>
<p>And I actually haven’t done this…even though it’s quite clear to me from googling that this is something that was all over the rightwing blogosphere long before HH presented it here as an original observation and chose to leave out Hillary’s name for purposes of her own. </p>
<p>I don’t object to this. My objection is about the “Who me?” defense when confronted. It’s the bad faith with the other posters that I have criticized, not the inflammatory post itself.</p>
Trust me, as “inflammatory” posts go, hh’s was pretty weak. It was certainly not worth the anger it’s inspired. Plus, it was about a <em>extremely</em> public figure who’s put herself “out there,” so to speak. HH’s commentary was not a specific insult aimed at any poster on this site.</p>
<p>Again, you’re completely missing the point. And I’ll venture some people did find the “Who me?” defense insulting to their intelligence. </p>
<p>That’s why the anger you think you’re seeing is so out of proportion to the OP itself. People aren’t reacting to the contents of the post as much as they are to the Who me? bit.</p>
<p>Actually, before we get back on topic, I decided to see if Berurah’s characterizations of the posters in this thread was fair or accurate.</p>
<p>I looked over the thread and before berurah’s posts–questions about HH’s motivation were raised only twice, once each by two different posters. And I once raised the point about the thread title belie-ing OP’s statement about why she posted it, so a total of 3 posts, even if you count mine as a questioning the OP and not the subsequent explanation.</p>
<p>This is hardly taking anyone “repeatedly to task” or even the kind of inordinate “anger” that was ascribed to the posters. </p>
<p>Berurah posted more times to “take to task” the people questioning the OP’s motives than the questioners did themselves prior to her negative statements about them.</p>
<p>That’s telling. Just because people disagree with a poster one likes, doesn’t mean that they’re automatically doing something inappropriate.</p>
With all due respect, conyat, I happen to be of the opinion that you do not possess the temperament/objectivity to determine either “fair” <em>or</em> “accurate.”</p>
<p>I think the numbers will show that your obvious dislike of me and your regard for HH colored your assessment more than you think.</p>
<p>HH’s a grown woman. She really doesn’t need you to rush into to make this thread all about the other posters, as you’ve succeeded in doing now for pages. And IIRC, not for the first time, either.</p>
<p>I thought the OP made a decent point that was both newsworthy – because of the new book – and trivial. There was really little to say about it. It matters. It doesn’t matter. Maybe one other illuminating insight. It was when people – on all sides of the equation – tried to recast worn out observations as new insights into what is basically a “factoid” that the Parents Cafe started to act more like the children’s table at Aunt Bessie’s Labor Day picnic.</p>
<p>I defy anyone to make a point here that’s related to the OP that hasn’t already been made. You can’t. So you lock horns and argue about semantics and intentions and who’s morally corrupt. Indeed, I was half-joking the first time I noted this but I was duped into thinking that there was some funny point being made about Marilyn vos Savant when I read the title. If the title of this thread was “Hillary Clinton Failed The Bar Exam! Who Knew?” I wouldn’t have so much as opened it because all the points made here are ones that get made repeatedly in every other thread where there’s some lightning rod political issue. And the sad part is that most of those points are rarely even about the issue at hand.</p>
<p>You said it, berurah. A post about sending all Republican candidates to prison until the maggots are done with them and then shooting their remains into space to avoid the further pollution of mankind gets a recommendation for a bumpersticker and a LOL.</p>
<p>A post about Hillary not passing the bar is cause for <em>outrage!</em> :p</p>
<p>Only on CC.</p>
<p>Off to watch the lady herself on CNN to see how she responds to the issues. :)</p>
<p>You know what? I think Marilyn vos Savant’s a phony. Supposedly vos Savant is her mother’s maiden name, but what are the odds that someone who markets herself as the “World’s Smartest Woman” or the Guinness record holder for highest IQ has the surname vos Savant? That’s just a little too precious. If life was a novel, the editor would make the author change her name because it’s just way too absurd and trite.</p>
<p>D’yer,
I think you are onto something. All these phonies claiming to be something they are not. I wonder if Captain Kangaroo really was a captain?!? :)</p>
<p>OK, seriously folks, this is getting silly. Now someone has even misinterpreted my “LOL”. Personally, I enjoy people who are clever and/or witty. On the previous page (I can’t go back, I am on avery persnickety laptop right now) someone pulled out of who-knows-where a quote about hating and really hating republicans. It was over-the-top and likely to incite a riot here. Someone (Conyat, I think) came back with the line about wishing it fit on a bumper sticker. It,IMO, cut the tension and was funny. So I laughed. It wasn’t what I expected the next post to be. It caught me by surprise and I laughed. It wasn’t a slur, it wasn’t an insult. It was funny. Plain and simple. Please do not read anything more into it than that.</p>
<p>Now, as for Ms. Vos Savant… there is no IQ score as high as she professes. You pegged it, D’yer :)</p>
<p>jym, I agree that things get out of proportion here on CC. Part of the problem is that posters have a history – we all do. So when someone makes a nasty comment, that is taken in context. If it’s from a poster who typically makes fun of things, or has a history of making mostly fair, kind posts (as you do, I might add!) then people can take it as a joke. When that’s not the case, it’s harder to find the humor.</p>
<p>It’s also the medium that makes us sometimes take offense when none was intended. </p>
<p>What I mean is, It’s hard to write with exactly the right tone of voice; even when we do, it’s hard to read what tone the writer really intended.</p>
<p>Especially when one is spending time doing this nonsense: [ u ] and then [ / u ] and so forth!</p>
<p>HH, re how she responded to the issues last night, I found her to be hysterical, weird, rude, gross and just generally obnoxious. I came away with the distinct sense that she cares not one bit about anything except getting to live in that awesome house on Pennsylvania Avenue for four more years. I especially didn’t care for the repeated response “I’m not answering hypotheticals…” sheesh, everyone else was presented with various hypotheticals and they did the best they could with the material. </p>
<p>I was however very unexpectedly impressed with Edwards - this caught me by surprise as I had already made up my mind I didn’t like him, and, I was also very, very impressed with Obama. It did strike me though that Obama wasn’t given as much air time as Hillary - wonder if this was my imagination, or, if it really was that way. It also seemed that he wasn’t covered as much as the others in the post-debate sound bites - did I imagine this as well? It just seemed like the coverage was stacked against him, but, it could have been just my impression, as I found myself very curious, wanting to hear more from him…</p>