[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

'll give you an example. In post #183 Lookout includes defense as one of the departments that needs to be cut. In post #185 he specifically says that military R&D should be cut.

Then in #189 you say "There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there." Clearly you did not read or did not understand his posts.

Lookout calls you on it in post #191. Which you complain about in post #192.

I missed the reference is 183. I interpret his statement in 185 to separate military and R&D, it was a response to F&B's comment, which absolutely separated military and R&D. LO responded (you say calls me on it) with

I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply.

Instead of saying

you must have misunderstood, since i said

he made a nasty, demening, dismissive, off-topic comment.

In light of the recent Kim fiasco, I let him know, without insult,

This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".

I promise that I will not police the politics forum again. I'll see yout in the next "the politics forum is full of nast, mean people, who shouldn't say those things" thread.

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Really? Seriously? All the UG, tw, and Merc posts on this board you've got to work with and this is what you want to complain about for meanness?

I've had ug and merc on ignore for ages, and try as I might, I can't get past the second sentence of a tw post. Disjointed sentence fragments are unreadable to me.