Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

[BigJohn]

I understood your statement very well: you were attempting to deflect criticism about the TM's inaccurate portrayal of OWS as a bunch of black-clad vandalizing extremists by invoking statements on other threads about the Tea Party, which I did not make or support.

[Tigerman]

I understood your statement very well:

No. You didn't.

you were attempting to deflect criticism about the TM's inaccurate portrayal of OWS as a bunch of black-clad vandalizing extremists by invoking statements on other threads about the Tea Party...

No. I wasn't.

...which I did not make or support.

Neither did you criticize them. And that was part of my point. You were quick to jump on what you perceived to be a misrepresentation of OWS, but, have remained completely silent regarding the many nearly identical misrepresentations of the Tea Party.

The other part of my point was basically in agreement with you, i.e., that the black-clad anarchists are not representative of the average OWS protester. I simply made that point by analogizing that misrepresentation to the frequent misrepresentation of the Tea Party as a bunch of avid racists.

[BigJohn]

I understood your statement very well:

Yes, I did understand your statement. It was not the meaning of it alone that I objected to, but the way you contextualized my statement.

And why would I need to comment on the Tea Party in a thread on OWS? You are assuming some sort of obligation to balance one's posts based on other people's political affiliation. I am not the editorial department of a newspaper. I am a poster reacting to various influence, one of which is mood, how busy I am (quite) and random desires. There are many things written on the Flob that I disagree with but ignore, for one reason or another.

TC's pic of black clad anarchists calling them OWS was absurd. I merely pointed that out.

Your reaction to my statement, with the assumption that I need to balance it by participating in other threads, is also absurd.

[TainanCowboy]

BJ -

Click the fucking link. Its the picture used with the article - NOT my picture...Capish?

[cfimages]

BJ -

Click the fucking link. Its the picture used with the article - NOT my picture...Capish?

Reading the article makes no difference. It is also stating that OWS is represented by anarchists.

[Tigerman]

Yes, I did understand your statement.

Its obvious that you didn't.

It was not the meaning of it alone that I objected to, but the way you contextualized my statement.

I just pointed out the obvious.

And why would I need to comment on the Tea Party in a thread on OWS?

You obviously do not need to.

You are assuming some sort of obligation to balance one's posts based on other people's political affiliation.

Not at all. Just making an observation. An obvious one, at that.

I am not the editorial department of a newspaper. I am a poster reacting to various influence, one of which is mood, how busy I am (quite) and random desires. There are many things written on the Flob that I disagree with but ignore, for one reason or another.

Obviously!

TC's pic of black clad anarchists calling them OWS was absurd. I merely pointed that out.

Yes. You did.

Your reaction to my statement, with the assumption that I need to balance it by participating in other threads, is also absurd.

I made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that you have not been balanced in your comments. Nothing absurd about that observation.

[BigJohn]

Of course I understood your point TM, it was very simple.

But I was not talking or even thinking about the Tea Party. Can you understand that point? Either way, I don't care.

I was simply making a small but important point about the way TM's post came across. Yes, I clicked the link TM and read the article. Interesting comments to it at the bottom of the page BTW. A very erudite crowd.

TM: if you want to post about the Tea Party, go ahead. I was not, so please don't try to contextualize me on that one. Once again, I have rarely commented on them, so don't try to make me part of your context or endless right versus left warfare on the flob.

Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.

[jdsmith]

Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.

I disagree. When one comments frequently on the OWS gang and doesn't comment on the TP gang, when both groups are so similar, it seems that one is simply choosing not to connect the dots, or to connect them but would rather not talk about them...kind of like when people bash Bush for being a liar and ignore extensively researched posts about Obama's lies. Stinks of gross disingenuous.

[Tigerman]

Of course I understood your point TM, it was very simple.

I don't think you did.

But I was not talking or even thinking about the Tea Party. Can you understand that point? Either way, I don't care.

Yes. That's obvious.

I was simply making a small but important point about the way TM's post came across. Yes, I clicked the link TM and read the article.

TC's. Not mine.

TM: if you want to post about the Tea Party, go ahead. I was not, so please don't try to contextualize me on that one. Once again, I have rarely commented on them, so don't try to make me part of your context or endless right versus left warfare on the flob.

Not my context. But, by choosing repeatedly to comment on one but never on the other, you are, in fact, part of that context.

Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.

I've made no such insinuation. Just an observation.

[BigJohn]

No, TM. You are the one making my views on TC's lame post part of something else. As I said earlier, there is no necessity for posters to allocate their comments in some sort of even way. Are you suggesting I should defend the Tea Party before I can attack a daft post about OWS? That is dafter than either movement. Leave it alone: you are becoming boring.

The point I made is that those black clad anarchists do not represent OWS. If you want to post about what does or does not represent the Tea Party, go ahead. But leave me out of it.