Yes. You did. Unless you have an alternative explanation for the following incredulous sentence:

"Yet at the same time, the source you posted is the weekly standard?"


Oh, pray tell how we get from that to me necessarily stating that the piece is an outright fabrication? You are acting like a bad highschool debate team. Iv'e seen whining teenagers do a better job of having a mature discussion.

"And you're ducking the discussion, because frankly, you have absolutely no basis for argument other than "the man must be lying."

In a word, bullshit. In a sentence- youre so full of shit your eyeballs are about to lauch form their sockets. You have no ability to state what my argument is when I have not made any argument nor intend to. I don't iontend to argue anything with you Tom, when you perform idiotic dog tricks like your original post in this thread. It is that idiotic dog trick that I was attacking in my ORIGINAL post in this thread and EVERYONE SINCE!

"I'm at least willing to consider that he might be telling the truth, and that it's worth looking into."

The whole point Tom, was not the veracity or lack of the original piece, Point of fact- I don't care about it one wit. What I ORIGINALLY POSTED ABOUT, you blithering idiot, is how you threw it out there and then, in the next paragraph, made an allegation about the complete two dimensionality of anyone who would disagree with the piece.

Now get this through your head. Its dishonest in a very basic way that should be obvious to you that to throw an argument or an OpEd or an interview out there and then make an dismissive characterization of EVERYONE who would question it is a childish bullshit thing to do. Hell, you are so off in La-La-Blogist-nut-land that you can't even get what this discussion is about!

Davin L.