| | Ryan,
I made two posts and Luke made one, and Robert made one BEFORE your first post. It was clear by the time you made your first post that the quote needed a context. Why would you launch your sarcastic attack when three people had already said the context was needed? Why didn't you ask what the context was?
In post #8 all I did was make it very clear that you had to read the book to understand that quote. And I continued to recommend the book. And I was strong in saying that it made no sense to discuss the quote without reading the book. But there were no insults, no name calling, and no "emo-raging."
In post #10 I said, "That quote needs context to be understood." And that is all that I said in that post.
You decided to make comments about what you seem to think that book says. That is part of the reason I made the reply that you got upset about. The other reason I made that reply is that I think you are an intelligent person - I've liked many of your posts and respected the reasoning behind them. And this is a book I'd like lots of people, especially people I respect, to read.
Go back and reread post #16. I NEVER called you stupid. I said that you said some stupid things. Which is true. And I just don't see any "emo-raging" There are people who post here that I wouldn't bother to make all of these replies to over such a trivial issue - you saw Ted's post, "Move along, there is nothing to see here" and he's right - this is all too, too trivial. Go back and reread that post of mine that upset you and see if you can find the words or phrases in there that amount to "emo-raging". And, I wasn't the one who posted the quote - I've just pointed out that it can't be understood without the context.
I was feeling impatient, and failed to sugar-coat my words, but they weren't "emo-raging" or anything you should have gotten pissed off over. I wasn't so much as "provoked," or feeling like you were attacking me. I was just irritated that Browne's book was getting the dirty end of the stick without being understood since it hadn't been read. As to the Anarcho-Capitalism thing - Yes, I came out guns blazing then. Anarchy is the enemy of anyone that believes in individual rights and should be attacked.
|
|
There are things you can do to be free, and if you turn your attention to those things, no one will stand in your way. But when you become preoccupied with those who are blocking you, you overlook the many alternatives you could use to bypass them.
