From: John Cuccia 

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:36:16 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:

>
>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:0nnjg1pnctnuggf28o8ee2i1bhtg9ce5j8{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:53:35 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Overall I consider you to be rational with some good points. Just too
>>>optimistic in regards to the current administration.
>>
>> Not optimistic so much as willfully naive w/r/t accepting the
>> pronouncements of the GOP spin machine.
>
>That really wasn't worth responding to, as you knew when you wrote it John,
>but this is such a good response from James Lileks, that I can't resist:
>=====
>Please get this straight: there are no marching orders. There is no RoveHive
>to which everyone buzzes in the morning for a scrap of Royal Jelly we carry
>off to our blogs. If there sometimes appears to be a unaniminity of subject
>matter, that's because certain ideas appear, flower, bloom, take root, and
>spread. Like kudzu. But kudzu is not taking orders from some dark shrouded
>mastermind made entirely of cellulose and chlorophyll. If you honestly think
>that everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is part of some dark soulless
>cabal dedicated to extirpating all photons and replacing them with negative
>matter that strips the flesh from the bones of the poor, I envy you; the
>world must make perfect sense.
>======

Says who?  Something called Screedblog?  Are you seriously offering this as
a response ot my contention that you are much too eager to accept, without
evidence, things that support your worldview while denying evidence of
things that don't?


>He's got some WMD stuff too:
>
>======
>"It may surprise you, but I actually have heard that argument before. The
>one about WMDs. Also the one about "shifting rationales."
It's come up from
>time to time. Consequently they do not leave me open-mouthed in stunned
>surprise, unable to craft a response. So it's not the show-stopper you think
>it is, alas."  http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/05/08/082305.html
>======
>
>But don't please don't bother to read the rest John, as it is clear that it
>is *you* that follows the liberal party-line du jour (du jour, because they
>don't seem to last longer than that, as they depend upon whatever the
>NYTimes et al. publishes day-to-day).

I read the rest.  Since the snippet posted above admits that the blogger
has no answer to the arguments that stun him, it offers nothing.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5