EP>NP>Damn! Where IS this source of yours? I can't find ANY of the
EP>NP>things you claim pro-gun to mean. All I can find is pro-gun means
EP>NP>pro-gun.
EP> I'll use smaller words in future. EP
Won't help. Pro-gun still won't mean what you claim it to be.
EP> *I'M* not the one calling everyone names who doesn't agree
EP> with me. You and Guy are the only ones who are demanding
EP> everyone follow their lead.
I'm not demanding anyone follow my lead. Closest I come is promoting
the notion of following ones own mind instead of blindly following the
lead of someone. Are you truly unable to discern the difference?
EP> As long as you're doing the best
EP> you can and not attacking other pro-gun people we have no
EP> quarrel. But if you're going to talk the talk, you'd better
EP> be ready to walk the walk. EP
Grand words. Wonder what you mean. Wonder if you'd be willing to walk
this walk of yours.
EP> *I* don't claim to be *more* pro-gun than anyone else.
Yes you do. Forgotten your rantings to me already? The one where you
said no one has done more then you, that no one is more committed then
you.
EP> I
EP> *DID* see those words, or something similiar in recent posts.
EP> Now *who* talks that way?
Nice allusion. Won't work. I have never claimed to be super anything.
These inferences by you miss the mark. Is attempting to smear someone
else falsely part of your unique interpretation of being pro-gun?
EP> As to insisting anyone vote for a
EP> particular candidate, *I* haven't done that.
No? Since you like allusions when you cast them at me (incorrectly, but
don't let that bother you), lets look at your words where you say voting
for Dole is the right choice (re, not voting for dole is the wrong
choice). Lets look at your words about a vote not for Dole is a vote
for Clinton (it isn't a vote for Clinton unless you vote for Clinton,
but don't let that fact slow you down). And lets not forget your sad
faces :-( You like to pepper messages about the horrors of not voting
for Dole with them.
You're pretty clearly insisting people vote for a particular candidate.
Your candidate. You've said several times now to several people that
voting for your candidate is the right thing to do (implying that not
voting for your candidate is wrong).
Myself, I don't really care if a person wants to vote for Clinton or
even Perrot...as long as that's how they feel and believe. Which is a
big difference between you and I. I think a person should vote as they
believe, you don't. You want us to vote your way, in the name of damage
control. Which is a misnomer since as you have admitted, your candidate
has, does and further intends to inflict damage.
Myself, I'm tired of voting to inflict damage and voting for mediocrity.
Think I'll try voting for what I believe to be a winner (as in what they
are, not whether they'll win an election) for a change.
EP> Who was it that
EP> called people who didn't vote with them "anti-gun" ? Who?
Earnest Padgette. That's who.
EP> I'm not asking you to go away OR shut up.
Actually you have. To both Guy and myself.
EP> I'm asking why your
EP> rhetoric isn't matched with action.
No, you've never asked that. You aren't now either.
What you are doing though is making things up to label rhetoric, and
implying that I must not be pro-gun actually. And that you are the true
pro-gun member, and your way is the right way.
One could ask you the same question. In fact, I think I will. Why
isn't your rhetoric matched by your action? Why do you claim to be pro-
gun when you act so anti-gun? Why is it that your rhetoric doesn't come
close to matching your actions, or those actions you demand of others?
But to answer your question, the rhetoric you call mine (which isn't
mine) is matched. It's called a vote. As well as phone calls and
letters. You on the other hand, don't match your own rhetoric or the
rhetoric you attribute to myself and Guy.
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------
* Origin: The GreyHawk BBS Columbia, MD 410-720-5083 USR V.34 (1:261/1116)
|