When you can't mount a convincing argument, resort to name calling and
wild
accusations.

The Gould hypocrisy rears its two faced head again.


I should have said, "name calling, wild accusations, and personal attacks".

As far as (I forget just whose) observation that I don't criticize Harry for
the same behavior- that's BS. I criticized Harry within the last few days for
his unfortunate choice of style. I just don't make it my life's work to chase
Harry through the NG. I only read about 10% of what he posts- particularly when
a thread has devolved to name calling.

With a half dozen people in the NG whose sole function is to flame Harry Krause
no matter what he says, I don't need to join the chorus. (Besides, the company
in that particular group is often a little sketchy, and often throws a bit of
crap my way as well).

Harry's case is pretty sad. He's smart enough to have a choice, and he chooses
a style that alienates almost everybody.
Some of the other folks who try to personalize every issue lack the brains to
discuss a complex issue (beyond repeating the "talking points" of the day)
and they are doing the best they can.

This "Gunner" character is quite a piece of work. He repeats the wild
distortion that I have never heard *anybody* except Limbaugh or Hannity
espouse....(that the heroic Guardsmen at Kent State were defending their lives
against an enraged mob of rioting, drug crazed, communist students charging
them with rocks and bottles)........and when 6, 8, or 10 people tell him he is
wrong and direct him to a wide variety of resources consistently relating an
accurate recount of events his ultimate flame off is to say that "Leftists are
scum. And they kill people in megadoses."

I can't remember the last time I blasted somebody for taking a shot at Harry.
He gets what he deserves.

What does it say about somebody who blasts me for being critical of "Gunner"?