On the other hand, if you have a problem with anything I said (and apparently you do, since you quoted my post), please feel free to dispute it directly, without labels (direct or implied).
The things we reveal.. Your assumption that I have a problem with
"anything I said" is interesting.
1. We must assume that no one agrees with our personal POV 100%.. therefore there will be things we say someone might not agree with. This shouldn't be interpreted that it's reached a
'problem' level. I'm perfectly secure in my existence when others have a different opinion on many if not most issues. In other words, while I may not agree with something you said, it would be a mistake to assume it bothers me enough to make a post about it.. especially if I hadn't taken the time to address it directly. Snide remarks from small minds aside, I'd guess this is most often the response when someone reads a forum post.
2. Could there be another reason I picked your post to quote? Such as throughout this thread you've demonstrated a thick enough skin and an appropriate level of intellect where you wouldn't take offense or assume I was targeting you directly? After all, we must jump off somewhere.
3. Its funny.. if the mere mention, or reminder perhaps, that people are well capable of self-labeling triggers introspect.. well.. perhaps we can and should find room for self-improvement. We all fit into this category I'm sure. After all, the last perfect man some don't even believe existed.
Veering off to the side...
This thread has been interesting to observe. The value of participation vs. observation became clear to me by the 6th page. Why?
How people present a point, or more aggressively debate a point.. says much about their knowledge and confidence of the given subject. For instance: If someone starts off with an inane label such as
"teabagger" (which connotes a vulgar sex act (some might not agree with the 'vulgar' part)) vs. the correct term
"teapartier" do you assume they're just ignorant of the correct terminology
(a serious breach of intellect), or that they're being deliberately provocative
(a serious breech of manners)? Or maybe they're just the proverbial sheep who hasn't stopped to consider what they're saying at all
(a serious breech of self)? Either way would you take this person seriously in debate?
Or how about when you're discussing Point A and someone responds with Point Z66 which is so far off the original point all you can assume is a lack of confidence in their position on Point A and they're trying to insult your intelligence by seeing if you'll jump to Point Z66 and forget Point A.. or perhaps they just have trouble following the conversation? Either way, is that person worth debating with?
I could present many such examples, but I hope I've illustrated my point. And maybe the reason only a few have participated in what is really a very interesting if not volatile subject. Its just downright boring discussing the topic in such a matter.
As my dearly departed great granddaddy was so fond of saying:
"If you're not having fun, flip her over and try her that way.."
