For what?

"Until you post one, refrain from posting to this thread again. "

Sorry, guv'ner, too bad.

Until you post one, refrain from posting to this thread again.

Correction: that was the topic of the POST. The topic of your first comment was twofold: firstly (and I quote): "When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now? (note the ABSOLUTE LACK of religious and location of crime qualifiers)" The second was pointed out that Obama's change was sending us all into the dumpster, which I felt stood on its own.

I have no idea why you are being so defensive, and are insisting on reading "nuances" Into your first comment that any teacher of English would patently agree do not exist out side of your intentions for it, and then proceed to belittle and insult me for making a point relevant to the comment you MADE as opposed to the one you seem to THINK you made.

Bluntly, if you have difficulty deciphering that comment or you honestly think your original comment carried some invisible modifier making it refer exclusively to crimes motivated by religion committed on American soil, you need to not so much step away from the computer as step away from the computer AND go back to English lit.

And your apology is accepted.

Obviously not, since I grasped the meaning of your words quite clearly. It is just that nobody here can read your mind, or see the so-called "nuances" in your comments that- well- have no words that would remotely indicate that such "nuances" exist (for instance, how does your initial comment indicate that that said criminal had to have committed a crime on American soil motivated by religion? Any English professor worth their salt would have agreed that you made no such indication in your first sentence, and you only tried to place that "nuance" in ex post facto.).

"Your first long post to me, in this *cough * discussion, was worthy of an F-,"

So says the person who apparently thinks that THEIR first comment had ANYTHING that indicated that it was referring only to those who committed a crime on American soil or was doing so out of a religious motive.

"not written in correct English,"

Dood, velcum to teh !ntervv&b$, vvhere have of the loosers speak en teh "Leet."

If you are looking for English experts who check ever inch of their posts for even the SMALLEST error in grammar before even contemplating sending it to their friends for further spell checking, much less posting it, you are damn out of luck.

And your English is hardly perfect yourself.

" and almost indecipherable. Go back and read it."

"Almost indecipherable?" Pray tell me, can you even go back up to read your own comment before unjustly tearing apart someone else's, given that one comment coming DIRECTLY after another, in a comment system like this, would naturally be referencing that comment?

But even THAT isn't a valid excuse, because I helpfully copied the very part of your post that I was referring to. That comment, particularly after the addendum of the part of the writing it was referring to, would have been perfectly intelligible to ANYBODY who had ever seen quotations from another work being analyzed in English classrooms across the country, or even anyone who had seen similar analysis on the internet.

That that was almost indecipherable to you speaks more about your ability to put two and two together than it does about my English skills.

"Though I wasn't in California, back then,"

While I WAS!

" I was exposed to the likes of the really dumb kids, Abbey Hoffman, Mark Rudd, the core/original, Weathermen and SDSers, et al. ! Che shirts, anti-war graffiti, all sorts of pro-Commie posters. leaflets, and training exercises, held in Central Park, the blowing up of a brownstone, by the damned Weather Underground, in how to disrupt the '68 Dem Convention, in Chicago, were all things witnessed."

And am I supposed to believe you saw absolutely no posters hailing Uncle Ho as the savior of Indochina from the evils of Western Imperialism? Am I supposed to believe that they only existed on the West coast? And even so, did the rhetoric of those really dumb imbeciles not reveal the fact that the saw the North Vietnamese as being the victims of imaginary aggression, when in fact they were the aggressors (with Uncle Ho being particularly high on the victim totem pole for them)?

In other words, what is the relevance to the dispute, save by demonstrating that you had a pulse during that rotten decade?

"There have been very few Islamic terrorist carried out ON OUR SOIL, in this century. You'd have to go way back in time, to when the anarchists murdered a mayor, tried to murder presidents, and did manage to murder several people during the Haymarket Riot for similar, yet different, kinds of political murders on our soil. Excluding Pearl harbor ( Hawaii wasn't a state 68 years ago ), 9/11 and the failed bombing of the WTC, also by Islamo-terrorists, in 1993, were truly without prescedent. "

Agreed, but WHAT IS THE POINT? While those were quite heinous activities, they hardly saw the perpetrators be cast in the light of victimhood, save amongst the fringe of the fringe, and particularly since this is rather irrelevant to the point that Uncle Ho was perhaps the most well known of the Left's anointed "victims," which was the original point of my comment and which you have steadfastly insisted on insulting and belittling me over?

"Hasan's murderous rampage and a few other such lone wolves ( none of which were called "victims", BTW ), have carried this off and thankfully many others have been nipped in the bud."

True, but again, if that was the point you wanted to make, you should have chosen different words.

Your first long post to me, in this *cough * discussion, was worthy of an F-, not written in correct English, and almost indecipherable. Go back and read it.

Though I wasn't in California, back then, I was exposed to the likes of the really dumb kids, Abbey Hoffman, Mark Rudd, the core/original, Weathermen and SDSers, et al. ! Che shirts, anti-war graffiti, all sorts of pro-Commie posters. leaflets, and training exercises, held in Central Park, the blowing up of a brownstone, by the damned Weather Underground, in how to disrupt the '68 Dem Convention, in Chicago, were all things witnessed.

There have been very few Islamic terrorist carried out ON OUR SOIL, in this century. You'd have to go way back in time, to when the anarchists murdered a mayor, tried to murder presidents, and did manage to murder several people during the Haymarket Riot for similar, yet different, kinds of political murders on our soil. Excluding Pearl harbor ( Hawaii wasn't a state 68 years ago ), 9/11 and the failed bombing of the WTC, also by Islamo-terrorists, in 1993, were truly without prescedent.

Hasan's murderous rampage and a few other such lone wolves ( none of which were called "victims", BTW ), have carried this off and thankfully many others have been nipped in the bud. And THAT was the topic; not any foreign dictators/tyrants.

Welcome to my life at that time. Only worse.

"You may have been in California, but I was in Greenwich Village. Not a one of them saw Ho Chi Mich as a "victim"."

I don't know about Greenwich, but back in the day in Santa Clara and Los Angeles it seemed like you couldn't go down a street without running into one or another self-centered group of ignoramuses chanting against "Franco-American imperialism" and proclaiming their support for "the Vietnamese Washington."

"I know the history of that time and refuse to argue it all, point by point with you, since it was YOU who took a simple statement of mine completely out of context and morphed it into something beyond irrelevant, untrue, without merit, and silly. "

Not so. How do I know? Your original post:

"When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now?

Obama promised "CHANGE" and on that, he certainly has delivered. It's just that this "CHANGE" is an hideous, stupid, nationwide destructive one."

And my response?:

""When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now? "

Three words: Ho Chi Minh.

That is all."

Now HOW is that "beyond irrelevant, untrue, without merit, and silly?" How is it even ONE? Any explanation?

"You would have been far closer to the mark, though still wrong, had you mentioned the left's infatuation with Sacco and Vanzetti, closer still with the Rosenbergs, but still off the mark; none of those people murdered fellow Americans on American soil, in a murderous, religious rampage, as Hasan did."

You did NOT ASK "When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless RELIGIOUS-BASED crime ON AMERICAN SOIL been seen as a victim, before now." You asked "When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as a victim, before now?" BIG difference.

If you cannot even read or remember what you wrote previously, you hardly have the right to criticize my grasp of History and English (such as the acts and existence of one "Ho Chi Mich.").