[laughing] Will too.

No, I will not. Don’t flatter yourself. I will do as I have always done my entire life, which is to take the actions I have decided are the right ones.

And by the way, you also consistently flatter yourself by believing that you understand, without really being told, what and how and why I am thinking, how I view things, and what has gone into forming those views.

[shaking head] Honey, darlin’, sugar, this kind of talk just encourages those who already are poised to post the lyrics of the schoolyard taunt which goes like this:

Chris and Shirin
Sittin’ in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G…

Don’t give them fodder, please.

Shirin writes: By what measure is “this approach” supposedly more effective?

Former polite entreaties were brushed aside. This time, a two-by-four upside the head has produced a reaction. Despite your insistence that this is the wrong aproach, you will carry my words into the voting booth. You will hesitate, and ask yourself, with finger paused over over the third party candidate: Am I doing this out of spite in reaction to what that asshole ChrisV on the NoQuarter blog said about me? Logic will win out and you will not vote for such. That is my hope, anyway.

And to clarify, a couple notes about “proof” from MW-10, which I intended in its original sense, that of “test”:

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of [the exception proves the rule] [prove a will at probate] b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard — sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

We’ll know if it had any effect when you tell us, in November of next year, who you voted for.

Shirin writes: But, in reality, you are correct. It is not about me. It is really about you.

All comments serve the interest, and usually the vanity, of the commenter, yes. Have you only just noticed?

As the guest entertainer of our show, please welcome Ian Anderson, in songful response to critics accusing him of self-indulgence:

Brain-storming,
habit-forming,
battle-warning weary winsome
actor spewing spineless chilling lines–
The critics falling over
to tell themselves he’s boring
And really not an awful lot of fun.

[spoken]But you’re wrong, Steve.
You see, it’s only solitaire.

–Solitaire, Ian Anderson

1. I am not your dear, so please refrain from trying to subordinate me by addressing me as such.

2. By what measure is “this approach” supposedly more effective? Do you suppose you have even captured my ear, let alone convinced me of anything with “this approach”? And how many other people do you suppose you have convinced with “this approach”? By what means are you counting the people who have rethought their views as a result of your incessant condescension and personal attacks?

Interestingly, I have found quite the contrary to be the case. When, out of frustration, I address people in a negative personal, or overly aggressive or condescending manner, not only are they unable to hear my message, so are a whole lot of other people who are listening in.

“some times, it’s not about you.”

Why do you consistently make it so very personal, then? If it is not about me, why the need to constantly put me in a subordinate status by demeaning and condescending to me, and addressing me as “your dear”? Why the need to personally impugn my integrity, my intellect, my thought process, and my honesty when you disagree with me? Why not simply argue your case based on its merits without the personal invective?

And now you tell us that this is not something you are doing in the heat of frustration, but rather a “technique” you are using because you actually think it is more effective? Wow.

But, in reality, you are correct. It is not about me. It is really about you.

Yes, as they say, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Hey waitaminute [laughing], where have we heard that recently?

As the deja vu washes over you, as well it should, please accept my apologies for my “New York manners”, which I have adopted since arguing more politely against this sort of destructive voting behavior in the 2000 election (and look how that turned out!). I’ve been flogging myself ever since with the lash: “maybe you should have said it a bit louder, with more bite.”

I think this approach is more effective, and you, my dear, are the unfortunate proof, like it or not. Try to remember that you are not really the target audience of my remarks– they are rebuttal of your advocacy of third party voting and directed to anyone reading your advocacy of such.

Difficult to believe, I know, but some times, it’s not about you.

Do you really think that introducing a topic with “If you were serious about this, you would have concluded long ago that [blahblahblah]…” is a good way to invite someone to think about, let alone consider and discuss with you the ideas you are presenting? Do you think making insulting and demeaning remarks, or addressing someone in a condescending manner is an effective way to foster communication? Or is it your intention to bring an immediate halt to any further thought or discussion? If the latter was your goal, you succeeded brilliantly.

Chris, I am a normal human being with normal, human being feelings. Normal human beings do not respond well to being consistently insulted, called names, demeaned, condescended to. I took it for awhile, and now have had enough of that from you.

That about cover it?

You really gotta loosen up and stop taking yourself so seriously, Shirin. Keep it up, and you’re gonna burn out a bearing, kid.

I have plenty of interesting people to interchange ideas with without having to wade through a swamp of insulting, demeaning comments throughout the process. You are not sufficiently more interesting than any of them to make it worth the slog.

PS I was not commenting on your grammar, but on your usage. Begging the question is a common logical fallacy. The expression is often incorrectly used when one should say “prompts the question” or “invites the question”. Sorry to see that MW has decided to endorse this misuse.

You’ve got to be kidding. How is Hillary the same as Giuliani or Romney or Thompson? If Giuliani is elected [he’s current the GOP frontrunner], John Dean says he’d be a lot worse than our worst Bushie nightmare. Thompson is an idiot, and Romney….?

Hillary isn’t perfect, she wasn’t my first choice…but she’s better than any of the Republicans running.

You’re missing the point. Why not just put all of our efforts into defeating her in the primary? Also, you are assuming that we take the same stance as you on domestic issues. For instance, with regards to Universal Healthcare, HRC is the worst of the Dems, as she is a proven failure in this regard, and there is still a ton of bitterness in the health community about her previous plan. Why don’t we stop falling for the media sponsorship of our least viable and most divisive candidate (excepting Gravel and Kucinich), and nominate someone electable, with a great voting record, like Dodd? (besides Dodd is J Stewart’s favorite, so that alone should be enough).