I hope you decide to come back soon. Can't speak for the rest, but I'll miss ya. You're extremely well-thought and have a unique way of expressing your ideals. If you stay away – what a true waist that would be.

I am sorry that I hurt you. I really am. I can't honestly say that my original comment to you that started all this was not meant to provoke or even offend; however, I can say, with complete sincerity, that I did not think it would offend you as deeply as it has. And I never thought it would actually hurt you. I was angry, and I meant to make you angry, but if I had known that it would cause you this level of pain and offense, that you are leaving TMV, I would not have said it — or, that is, I would have made the same point in a different way.

I don't expect that you will find the above convincing or that it will make you feel any better, but I am telling you what I feel to be true.

One reason why it surprises me that your reaction to my comment was as strong as it was (again, not that I'm surprised you reacted strongly; but this is an extremely strong reaction that I did not expect) is because you have said things here — on many occasions — that objectively were quite offensive and that did offend me and also did hurt me, because they were very personal. Most of the examples I could give I have never told you about or mentioned here or responded to here in any way. I tell myself that you are a very hot-tempered person, and if truth be told I am too, or I can be. My way is to just stop addressing your comments for as long as it takes for me to feel okay again. The time you called me — in the heat of anger — a bitch (sorry, Dr E!) — that's how I handled it. I stopped talking to you. Then you made the first move to make amends, and it was over. That's my way. But because you have not been exactly a shrinking violet about expressing your strong disagreement with me over these months, I did not imagine that you would take offense to the point of leaving. And I do understand that I am not the reason for that; just the trigger.

Fair enough.

I just hope you will take the time to read this and, although you are still going to feel what you feel (someone else's words can't change that completely), perhaps, hopefully, you will believe that I mean what I write here.

Best to you.

Kathy -

This will I am sure come off as a “I am blaming you for me leaving” post, but trust me, it is not that at all. The problems we had with my viagra post and your reactions to me are just the proximate cause event of allowing me to realize what I suspected – I need to take a long break from this board (showing my age there using the term 'board' rather than 'blog').

However, I also think you do not realize just how deeply you offended me and frankly hurt me over this whole issue.

From initially thinking I would post something hateful to women and calling me out for posting a misogynist statement (an exceptionally loaded word, and despite your being correct in not directly calling me a misogynist, it certainly was implied, IMO), to your complete unwillingness to address me fairly when I made it clear I had no idea why you thought that, to the fact that finally once I made it abundantly clear what my intent had been and always was you still refused to do the decent thing – provide a simple, sincere apology for mis-understanding my post and using hateful words to describe it, and for treating me so shabbily along the way.

I truly thought you were a bigger person than that, and despite our obvious political differences, I thought you thought better of me than that. But obviously not. It has permanently changed the way I think of you as a person.

So be it. We don't have to respect each other, or like each other. That is what I was getting at in my previous post to tidbits about caring too much what people think of me.

Take care.

I did not say I was never defended against unfair attacks, especially in the past. But the progression of the tone on this board over the past year, and then the past few days in particular with the issues I had with Kathy were the final straw. I truly felt I was being viciously and unfairly maligned (I still do), and got a bit of tepid support against her attack, at best.

That left me with a very bad taste, and as I said, after reflection, a realization that I spend too much time here, care too much what people here think of me, and I need a break.

As I said, I need to stop my obsession with this board (really doc, I can quit after just one last post!)

I most likely will be back. I have been here almost 6 years (not 4 like I mis-posted), and took a 4 month or so break a few years ago. I will probably do about the same this time.

To JD, I am truly disappointed in your apology, especially the almost groveling way you wrote it.

You expressed an opinion. You did not call Kathy names. You did not say she should be banned, or that her posts should not be allowed at TMV. Yet you capitulated to the call of the mob rather than stand by a rather innocuous statement. If anything, the people here who heaped such scorn on you owe you an apology.

That is part of the atmosphere here that makes me feel I have to leave – criticism of left positions is voraciously attacked and apologies demanded, but think about what has been said to you about your religious beliefs, your positions on abortion, and your positions on gay marriage, with no apologies forthcoming for over-the-top statements.

BTW – TMV is really is not analogous to Kos. It IS becoming analogous to Balloon Juice though, IMHO

You can leave if you choose, but don't blame, please…we don't deserve that. I believe your daughter's name is Vicki (if I recall correctly…and if I got it wrong, please forgive me). Please know we all support her, and you, and your family.

Best,

tidbits

as no one would even come to my defense against kathy's viscous attack against me.

Not so. I offered Kathy the benifit of the doubt on her words there for the time being, but I did state she should clarify as the words she posted were unclear and could be seen as a statement that I felt was beneath her. So I did defend you there, just as I defended Kathy here and the time she was called “unnatural” by another poster.

Thank you, Steve. It seems that great minds think alike.

.

But so often do idiots, and idiots disagree with great minds sometimes, and other times agree with them, and great minds can often disagree with each other. What I'm saying it that agreement or disagreement with a person is not a measurement of who has a great mind and who is an idiot. I've always thought that old proverb to be kinda silly.

Anything and everything could possibly happen in a PR-stunt show trial like this.

(Show trial? Yes, as well as an obvious PR stunt. That it might be anti-Bush lefty-salve is debasing. That it is a show trial is not a surprise. New York? Stupid as that is, not a surprise. Even in a case like this, the Ninth Circus Court could go off-script if a trial were held somewhere more appropriate, far away fro New York, such as in Los Angeles or San Francisco, instead. That it is a show trial is no surprise, either, given that the Obama administration has already sought to engage in suppression of dissent and control of the media, as well as seeking Communist-style “denunciation” of dissent by individuals, too.)

1. “This is a time in our history that cries out for us to put our system of justice to the test, to put it on display for all to see”

No. This trial, and selecting New York City for it, is the most cheap PR stunt, appealing to the basest of emotions and lowest, most shallow intellectual level, possible. Immediately it compromises getting a fair trial; a change of venue is to be immediately expected, obviously. This is a feel-good stunt; to whom it was aimed is the real question. Are there really that many in this country who would buy this stunt? Is it to appeal to the most silly protestors in Europe about earlier Bush administration behavior, and is this a tardy, silly, stupid “image repair statement” appealing to such people (rather than normal people in this country, who should be the ones that count)? The Obama administration seem once again to be play-pen, fumbling elitists, out of touch with reality and the US mainstream. Why this, and why now?

As I began to note on another thread, in spotting something Rudi posted on that other thread, there is a kernel of validity here, that has escaped too many people's notice or attention, it seems, and it should be noted here:

The crime happened in US territory, and it was before the war. The analogies to properly apply to this, which establish the precedent for this trial, are the earlier World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of the federal government facility in Oklahoma City. This earlier large bombing was by domestic terrorists who were US citizens; the only thing different for the 2001 World Trade Center terrorism is that the perpetrators were foreigners. The civilian laws of the USA still apply in this case, it is reasonable to maintain. It's that kernel of truth that may be provided in defense of what the Obama administration has decided to do. The rest of it, the public relations stunt, the appeals to emotion (complete with seeking the death penalty, which will render many liberal opponents of execution hypocritically silent), the sick insinuation that this is some corrupted-Carteresque propriety ploy and atonement and remediation for Bush administration unpopularity among the clucking and worse critics — all that is garbage, to which the response nation-wide was prompt and predictable.

No problem.

She's an open book. The title: “1968.”

She's more consistent than Mikey. (Michael Stickings), who, in Canada, has often imitated the most overt, blatant, worst among play-pen and worse extreme left rigid PC conformists here in the States. (He showed restraint, moderation, even, and realism in taking the sane, “anti” side about Polanski.)

AR:

I am often in the minority on some issues, but I keep plugging away.

You may want to reconsider

Dorian

All our best to you and your daughter

Dorian

This morning's NYT:

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took a bold and principled step on Friday toward repairing the damage wrought by former President George W. Bush with his decision to discard the nation’s well-established systems of civilian and military justice in the treatment of detainees captured in antiterrorist operations.

From that entirely unnecessary policy (the United States had the tools to detain, charge and bring terrorists to justice) flowed a terrible legacy of torture and open-ended incarceration. It left President Obama with yet another mess to clean up on an urgent basis.
.
.
.

Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television
.
.
Still, this much is clear: the Obama administration has yet to completely figure out how to rectify the disgraceful Bush detention policies, but it is getting there.

.
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/opinion/14sat…

Greenwald also asked in his article, I'm paraphrasing “what would happen if Iran applied the same system of justice to the “innocent????” hikers?” What if they tortured the hikers, had a show trial, or no trial, or just had them executed out right. Would we not point to how unAmerican, how unfair, how these countries are inferior to our proud traditions.

Listen people, I may be progressive about many issues, but about this I'm very conservative: FOLLOW THE LAW. DON'T MAKE UP LAWS FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. DON'T SET UP DIFFERENT LEVELS OF JUSTICE.

The whole world is watching………….and no they are not blindfolded and few of them will suffer us as fools. All of this is fodder for the so called terrorists, and we lose global respect by doing it.

I want to acknowledge your apology and had I read further down I would not have had the need to post. I didn't though, I read your post, and felt so out of line, I had to comment. Thanks and welcome back, I guess we can all climb up on the soap box from time to time.