Yes I did, and I replied directly to it, using your own words, and the thoughts they appeared to me to present, as the basis for that reply. You said:
Again, your'e perfectly entitled to your opinion, welcome to it in fact. But others are not lacking in any way simply by disagreeing with you. That's arrogance and delusion itself. And quite frankly it cheapens your argument.
I said in reply to your accusation that my arguments are somehow "cheapened" by what you perceive as arrogance and delusion on my part:
My arguments stand not only as factually accurate and documented as such, but in this thread at least, they also stand as unrefuted, except for a few instances of childish name-calling and recriminations for having the audacity to form my own opinions based on the very facts that you and others have ignored. That you continue to say that the N R A is not a gun control .org without a scintilla of evidence to counter all the presented facts to the contrary is what I consider to be indicative of delusion, not because you or anyone else disagrees with me personally. You appear to be attempting to apply some amount of logic here, but again, your abilities in that regard have failed you.
I never claimed you begrudged or otherwise tried to stifle, or even disagree with, my opinions. I also have not claimed you (or anyone else) have ignored my
opinions, I have (rightfully, as far as any evidence shows within this thread) claimed that you have ignored all the
evidence that I and others have presented as the basis for them. Now you claim that's not true. So OK, you say you have not ignored the evidence I and others have presented. Have you countered them with contrary evidence of your own? Have you challenged the veracity of the betrayals, events and lies by the N R A that I and others have documented? You say you don't agree with the opinions (or conclusions) I have drawn from the evidence that underpins them, but why not? I haven't challenged your right to make up your own mind, I've only asked why you disagree with opinions and/or conclusions I've come to, and to provide a better rationale for same than simply, "I disagree, so there." (I know you haven't said "so there," but that is the gist of the messages I get from you on this topic. without saying or documenting why you disagree with my opinions, it's no different than actually saying, "I disagree, so there." so there).
I have said things to the effect of anyone who reads the VP of the N R A stating unequivocally that his .org has been for "reasonable and workable gun control measures since its
inception" is indeed delusional if they believe that the N R A has never been a gun control .org. You claimed saying things like that cheapens my argument. I claim my arguments stand as unrefuted with anything other than personal attacks, cheap shots, lies, and impugning my character. Which argument is really cheapened? The one that uses facts and documentation to aid in its articulation, or the one that uses accusations of being a racist, felon, full of horseshit, links that don't say anything close to what the poster(s) claim they're being used for, and hold up the N R A's support for FOPA '86 as "proof" that the N R A
isn't a gun control .org? In other words, how are my
arguments cheapened just because I hold fast to my
opinions that are based on thoroughly documented
evidence? The argument would only be cheapened if they were shown to be wrong, or at least weak, and I kept putting the same argument forward. Like I said, my arguments stand not only as factually accurate and documented as such, but in this thread at least, they also stand as unrefuted.
What you perceive in me as "arrogance" is nothing more than confidence that what I'm saying is firmly rooted in truth. People seem unable to accept such confidence these days for some reason. If my opinions or conclusions could be shown to be based in lies, inaccurate data and/or misrepresented historical events and utterances, you (or anyone) would shatter that confidence in a nanosecond, as all I'm about is getting at and knowing the truth of the issues that interest and/or concern me. I don't hold fast to my opinions because they
are *my* opinions, I hold fast to them because to deny the evidence before me and claim that the N R A is concerned with protecting my rights would be tantamount to purposely accepting a lie just to get along with others who, for whatever reason(s), can't or won't accept the truths that the evidence clearly demonstrates. You call that arrogance. I call it confidence that the evidence I have spent years scrutinizing has led me to the right conclusions. Obviously, and for good and rational reasons, I disagree with your opinion about my "arrogance," and find the accusation of me being delusional to be just another baseless bit of brain-dead blather.
Blues
