Back in the 80s I worked with somebody I'll call Elaine. After a few side conversations with her, I pretty much decided not to get into conversation with her about anything other than strictly-work-related issues because most of those side conversations had gone something like this one (a very rough example from distant memory):

Me: Hey, I see a triple-decker burned down on your street last night. That's too bad!
Elaine: It wasn't last night it was yesterday afternoon.
Me: Oh, the news said it started at around 7 PM.
Elaine: So now I'm a liar?
Me: No, I'm just saying what the news said! Too bad about the families...losing everything.
Elaine: Well, they probably didn't have that much, and if they didn't rent the place, they wouldn't have gotten into this situation!
Me: Well, sheesh, people gotta live somewhere!
Elaine: I bet they set the fire themselves!
Me: Wow, how do you figure that???
Elaine: What, so you're saying *I* set it???

....and so forth and so on. Some sort of a "forest versus the trees" problem, I thought, but after about 5-6 go-rounds like this, I gave up.

There's an aspect of some of the BBS conversations with you that are just a little reminiscent of the frustration that I felt with Elaine. Of course, I get the sense that you may feel some of this from 180 degrees, but I can only speak to what I've experienced.

You have criticized Webroach for being "pretty much the only one here being overtly rude to me", but I in turn, while I won't get into the veracity of your accusation, I am concerned that you may be unfairly singling him out. My cheesy little Golden Gate drama could be interpreted, aside from making some fun, as not conveying respect for your positions or arguments and that is actually the case. Frankly, I just got tired of having what felt like an "Elaine" discussion and decided to have a little fun. I continue to admire Bonzi's mature, thoughtful comments. He is a much better man than I. Me, shame on me, but I guess my role as grumpy, immature provocateur has been reinforced by BBS history: on those few occasions where I iniate a polite and mature thread in OT, it sinks like a stone.

But how did I get to Daring to Fly? I feel a responsibility ("Why?", I can only ask myself.) to explain.

Well, I certainly *did* criticize Condi Rice in a pointed, exaggerated, insulting way, so perhaps I have brought this on my own head. Our employees in the White House, though, are public figures and are expected to tolerate and survive a certain amount of satire, lampooning, caricture and ridicule, though. So some of this is Condi's job. Still, should I *really* have called her an idiot, or should I just have stuck with something more neutral and respectful like "cunning liar"? It's a tough call.

If all you did was cut and paste Condi's resume and say "Hey, that's not fair!", I guess I would have to simply concede and say, "Yup, some of her resume is quite impressive." and just tone it down -- stick with the whole cunning liar thing and point out that she hasn't done jack since 2000 and admit that, yes, I really hate her boss (you got me there).

You've been pretty quick to jump in other people's case for being "arrogant" and such, but I have to say that I am amazed you can manage that when you sling slipshod knowledge and anger around so readily. I am going to just pick through a few snips and offer some frank thoughts:

Quote:
"but here's a start for anyone else reading this who is possibly less entrenched in their self loathing or at least don't get their news from Moveon.org."

OK, you were hot under the Condi, but one part of this comment is a gross, spiteful insult and another part is simply Rush-esque demagoguery. I let the insult go on the first pass, but not now. Oh, and the last time that *I* looked at moveon.org (one of 3-4 occasions), was when Howard Dean was still in the race. It is probably to my discredit that I have not looked since.

Quote:
"And yet some liberals insist on calling her an 'Aunt Jamima' or a 'mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton.'"

If you are going to falsely expand the insults I issue, you could at least spell "Jemima" correctly.

Quote:
"How's your resume' lookin?"

How good does my resume need to look to be a US citizen, poster on this BBS, and critic of this or any other administration?

Quote:
"or even toss the "neo" in there to make "neocon" so that the casual observor might associate it with "neo-nazi" (the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew") "

Boy did you pull *this* one out of your butt! Hey, but feel free to make stuff like this up in political discourse and then wonder afterward what the big fuss is about. I still wonder what news outlet this came from -- or maybe it came from very casual reading? I submit that anybody who wants to participate in current political debate where American, Iraquis and others are dying on a daily basis has a responsibility to understand what this term means and who those players are. If you want to be taken seriously.

Quote:
"and Condeleeza (although let's make her sound like a child and call her "Condi")"

Why, pull one out of your butt again! I would collapse in shame in the face of this criticism if one or two other people didn't call her that.

Quote:
"Oil tanker?? Aw man, you just gave away your source... that parody George W. Bush resume right?"

You thought I was joking.

Quote:
This just serves are good character assassination to try to nip her possible [2008] run at the bud.

I hadn't heard this theory. Is this yours alone or held more widely? How handy, though. Any attempt to take nominees to task for their prior commissions/omissions (like pointing out how someone behaved feebly/ineffectually in the runup to 9/11, misrepresented intelligence and/or lied or, in other nominee cases, ignored torture problems) is nothing but an attempt to damage their future political prospects. Well, I guess we should pack up our questions and go home. Not.

Quote:
"Obviously there was a strong enough terrorist movement long before President Bush took office [.....] such as the "Millenium Plot" in Los Angeles. Doing nothing wasn't an option."

And so doing stupid things was somehow mandatory?

Quote:
"But all of this supports my original point that this is truely a debate over the Bush administration and presidential term. Defaming Condoleezza Rice by calling her an idiot, retarded (Rainman reference), puppet or even "mildly smart" is disgraceful. "

In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush sat around and looked like an idiot. From all I can tell, Rice sat around and looked smart. But you are right, I am a disgrace. I formally withdraw that remark. I will just call her ineffectual or out of her depth, or paralyzed by neocon Iraq fixation, or an unwitting tool or a cunning liar. I can't decide, but you could help by telling me what effective things she did prior to 9/11 and has done since then other than nod and occasionally protest her innocence.

Quote:
"Doing so would mean a Bush accomplishment and that would ruin the whole effect of someone's "cough" web site. Hopefully you're not in that crowd, but how odd it must be to wake up in the morning knowing that you're wishing for the same outcome as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Not liking my Web page doesn't create positive accomplishments, Brad. If you want me to put "He cut Brad's taxes!" up there, I will take that under consideration.

Oh, and thanks for the al-Zarqawi slander, by the way. It is helpful. I gotta practice spelling his name correctly if he's ever going to read my coded messages. In truth it was that nasty, ill-considered comment on your part that told me that what I thought was a fairly deliberate attempt to explain a difference between "root for" and "expect/predict" was something that you just cast aside, and it is the one that finally made me put these conversations in the "Elaine" category (and got me thinking of the lame "Daring to Fly" parable).

Quote:
Well, we certainly have a disconnect here then. [...] But the only way to ensure failure is to concede to it. Ted Kennedy seems to prefer this route, I do not."

Hmmm "the only way to ensure failure is to concede to it." How moving. Think hard, Brad. There are other ways to ensure failure.

Quote:
Do you really go through life predicting doom and gloom at every turn? Would anything short of Utopia satisfy you?

Now what do you base this on? Oh, oh,... self-loathing! I get it!

Brad, it must be great being easy to please. To sleep untroubled by comments like "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," ... "It's wrong. It's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous."

A clue, though: Jim has somehow survived in the absence of Utopia. In the alternate history department, though, Nixon lost and this country and the world became a better place. Jim was much happier. Very happy in fact.

Iraq? The troubling unknown is whether the extremists are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. It is quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.