[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your first post referencing him was 12/5/2007. Your first post insulting him was 12/9/2007, based on a misreading of his quote and a request by him for clarification. He responded by leaving the thread.

Where is the insult? I remember that discussion without even reading it. You did not hyperlink the entire discussion meaning that important context is ignored. classicman, with mockery, accused me of stating what was instead only a requote. Where is this reply insulting to classicman?

What part of "requoted" don't you understand. Are you really Urbane Guerrilla? The 'requote' and the expression embedded in double quotes ALSO came with a hyperlink so that others could see exactly what was posted. How many times over could it be that simple - and still classicman is confused?

Where is the insult?

In fact, he and I both agreed that Cheney's "Mission Accomplished" claims were delusional. But somehow classicman assumed otherwise, as if I was attributing Cheney's mindset to him. IOW classicman was mistaken by misreading the requote.

classicman's misread was so contrary to what I posted that, at that point, I was seriously wondering if classicman was Urbane Guerilla posting in a new mantra. Somehow UT perverts that into insults? Obviously it is not. UT – is this the best you can do? Well, yes, because tw did not post insults. He posted conclusions with supporting facts. And he posted those conclusions harshly when replying to obvious mockery.

UT's second citation again forgets to include the snippy classicman post that preceded it. UT again forgetting a fact distorts context and create a lie. classicman posted:

Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election. C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.

The tw reply to that snippy post: UT calls it insulting. The statement was made WITH supporting facts in response to obvious mockery. Again, the topic was addressed; classicman was not attacked. The topic was classicman not reading what was posted – and asks why he did not read it.

tw's second post replies with supporting facts for why that conclusion is drawn.

As usual, classicman knows because he was there in 1959. Oh. He need not be there. Extremist conservative bias is enough to know.
…. Classicman's post is a blunt obvious insult. Being a moderate means learning facts before knowing. But classicman knows all about Kennedy because he were there. Did god tell you how to know?

A legitimate question since classicman never posts any reasons supporting his “knowledge” and obviously did not exist then. So classicman tells me I (who was there) did not know what I was posting? Nonsense.

"Oh please do. I need to know this before the election" is classic classicman mockery. UT calls that gracious? Where? Oh. After my post, classicman all but apologized for his snippy reply. UT also ignored that classicman admission.

I was in a rush to post. Now I'm sorry I posted in haste and got nothing more than another indignant response

Indignant. An accurate description and what should be expected from a snippy post that says nothing and reeks of mockery. Not insulting. So indignant as to terminate any more classicman mockery.

See that word, UT? "AFTER". The post you quoted was in response to classicman mockery - and posted with logic and supporting facts. And AFTER that, classicman all but apologized for posting in haste. UT, however, calls an appropriate reply “insulting"? Where? UT, again you are desperate to find insults that do not exist. Even classicman admits his post was in haste and not properly thought out.

As a result of that terse reply, a later classicman post ask questions without mockery or insults:

Why don't you agree? Are your politics morwe in-line with hers? Does she excite you in some fashion? What is it about her that you like?

Since this is the best you can do, well, UT instead proved my point. I did not discuss classicman’s little dic that does thinking for him; until after noting how the Cellar has changed. If posted, now that would be an insult. UT. Where does that sentence provide supporting facts for its conclusion? Why is it relevant? It does neither. Therefore it examples an insult. Find where I posted that at classicman – and good look. UT has no examples of such insult because tw never posted insults. UT’s examples, at best, only display justified indignant; always posted with supporting facts for a logical conclusion.

Your examples only demonstrate that tw only started posting insults after noting the new Cellar - which UT even denies has changed. OK UT. Prove me wrong. Why do you so approve of the so many Urbane Guerrilla personal attacks when neither April nor Barak did anything near that anti-social. You banned those others for far less (obviously I am not even impling a call for banning despite how others will foolishly and have previously assumed).