In April of this year at his Durham in Wonderland blog, KC Johnson said on the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center" thread @ 4/26/09 10:06 AM:
To the 9.55, et al:One of those who responded to KC was Bobo1949 @ 4/26/09 12:51 PM:
POLITICO reports, "Prejean has taken full advantage of her newfound stardom, becoming an almost hourly fixture on cable news," where, of course, she is being asked on same-sex marriage.
It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not.
to 10:06AMAmong the many commenting on the thread critical of KC, Joan Foster was, IMO, one of the most effective in countering what KC's critics saw as the “cheap shot” he’d taken at Carrie Prejean.
As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech.
More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.
The thread moved along until in the next to last comment Joan complained KC wasn’t clearing her comments. She ended her 4/27/09 2:56 PM comment with this:
:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:Nine minutes later KC Johnson responded @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM:
To Joan:KC Johnson now insists he never banned Joan Foster. Many of his supporters say he was only trying to shut down an already lengthy thread.
My best wishes to you.
I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.
Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.
But on a thread where many were critical of him, KC addressed his comment ONLY to Joan.
He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment, but “[a]mong those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.”
He posted that just nine minutes after she'd ended her comment with ":ban;ban;ban;ban;ban:"
And he never said he was shutting down the thread.
KC's now insisting he didn't ban Joan. He's posted saying I slimed him when I said he did.
But the first instance I can find where KC posted claiming he had not banned Joan didn't occur until AFTER I called him on it in KC Johnson Now.
If KC didn’t ban Joan, why didn’t he say so in the weeks BEFORE I called him on it?
Did KC Johnson really not know reasonable people would conclude from his “To Joan” comment immediately following her comment ending with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” that he'd banned her?
21 comments:
"Did KC Johnson really not know reasonable people would conclude from his “To Joan” comment immediately following her comment ending with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” that he'd banned her?"
He assumed people reasonable people can read.
He wrote, as you quoted, "I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread ..." (my bold)
He did not say or announce, as he has done in the two cases where he has in fact banned commentors, that he was banning Joan. His comment was very specific to the precise argument she was making over and over, not to her commenting in general.
Had he wanted to ban Joan, he would have said exactly that. What he said was absolutely directed at her repetitive hypothetical, easily understandable to someone who can read, and clear to everyone who follows the Blog regularly.
With all due respect John, you are making a fool out of yourself with this continued argument. You are tilting at windmills, sir.
One Spook
John:
Lest you're tempted to lump me in with "Many of his [KC Johnson's] supporters" in this argument, go back and read my own comment on Johnson's subject post. It's the first comment, and it ended with, "It is troubling enough that you [Johnson] continue to use partisan political issues as examples in your analyses here, but it is even more disturbing when such an example does not even support your premise.
Then, read how you characterized Johnson's comment to Joan in your post, to wit: "He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment"
That is a gross and intellectually dishonest mis-characterization of what Johnson said, which was this:
"I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread ..."
He did not ever say "continue to comment" ... those are your words. He said that what she could not continue to do was "more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread"
I am a supporter of you and of Johnson, but I refuse to support you or anyone else who makes an intellectually dishonest mis-characterization of another person's words.
At some point, you need to get over this and realize that the rest of the Army isn't out of step, John ... you are.
One Spook
Spot on, One Spook. Also, of note, our blog author continues in his refusal to use his "best evidence," which is a legal term of art for the doctrine that lawyers cannot use a copy of something or testimony about it when the original is available. John, why not ask Joan if she was banned?!
I would add that, although John obviously has access to that D-i-W thread, he failed to mention that Joan Foster was permitted 8 posts and over 2,500 words on what was essentially a peripheral issue.
Moreover, there were 12 other posts condemning the Prejean analogy. Joan effectively derailed the thread, especially given the fact that she was allowed to call the forum moderator a name (St KC) and compare him to, respectively, Lubiano, the Gang of 88 and the New York Times.
This is additional proof for my theory that this whole spat is due to partisan politics and nothing more. That theory is explained in detail in a post on Chris Halkides blog -- which, horror of horrors -- hasn't been cleared by the blog moderator yet. MOO! Gregory
One Spook,
This Banning Issue is a distraction from the real point: can a man who brays at others in academia about maintaining a "free marketplace of ideas"...and "civil discourse"...be an effective advocate when he cannot conduct his own little blog fiefdom within those same parameters?
In THAT moment, after having three of my comments held while others cleared, after his sarcasm, his twisting of my words, I read his words as "banning."
You don't wish to consider the particular context, do you?
Soon after this gem of civility was posted:
Debrah says
"I realize that KC will, no doubt, find humor in my latest concern; however, I find no humor in it at all.
Simply because I have witnessed the cancerous way that some "allies" on other blogs have conducted themselves throughout.
I agree with KC that there was a gross analogy being made on a previous thread.
A few relentless commenters tried to equate the significance of two very different issues.
Because one commenter---who is known to all for beating to death a topic and who has been allowed, with lots of help, to bully her detractors on other blogs---could not take a hint, the comment section was closed.
A few commenters on that blog have even tried to imply, ever so gingerly, that KC is gay and that's why Joan "hit a nerve", explaining his reaction.
This is the brand of ad hominem attack and innuendo many of these people have used on others.
Please continue along these lines and you will know what it feels like when a bulldozer filets a few of your flat behinds.
And some say they will no longer come to Wonderland. Really?
That will be a refreshing modification in behavior, but you low class M-effers have nowhere else to go!
LOL!!!
Perhaps a daily dose of the crazy and overbearing housewife Joan and the phony, dishonest, soupy, and opportunistic redneck Jackie Brown can provide a version of "The View" over there on that overrated and overbearing blog.
If a few of you sons-of-b!tches want a volcano coming toward you, then you wil have one.
I can only imagine the kind of garbage that is discussed on the "private and inaccessible" discussion thread.
And my name is spelled with an "H" you stupid freaks!"
Might that have added an element to the event that confirmed my reading? That post sat there for hours.
Later I was told it was a "mistake."(not by KC...he hasn't the civility or good breeding to do even that)
I then posted THIS on LS:
"Well, let me write a summary here.
On one hand:
KC Johnson played a major role in exposing this Hoax.
KC Johnson played a major role in its demise
KC Johnson IMO played a major role in saving three kids’ lives.
On the other:
I spent a bad afternoon at KC’s blog.
I came here and complained.
I think I was banned.
Today, a mistake was made, it was recognized, and amended.
It was a mistake. KC apologized on his blog.
I know this to be true.
I think that about covers it. I’m going to ask Tony to close this thread."
That apology TO HIM was rewarded by further communication from ODDJOB Deb...threatening me for upsetting the Master Of Wonderland.
The word "banning" was my word. But lost in this is the fact that you believe that KC was administering a "free marketplace of ideas that day." This is the ideal he holds up to the rest of academia....the goal you all flock to Wonderland in hopes that others in academia will model.
The blog is KC at the podium; the comment section , his lucky students. The sarcasm, twisting of others ideas, shutting down of oppositional ideas...and the targeting by teacher's pet of anyone who upsets the class...all are on Wonderland for Academia to observe and emulate.
Is that YOUR point? Or are KC's pretty words and lofty ideas and braying at people you disdain enough for all of you...you aspire to nothing more so his hypocrisy does not matter?
To One Spook,
In your comments you say I'm “a fool” and “intellectually dishonest” but you never mention KC's final comment came right after Joan said "ban" five times.
Why not?
Doesn't that provide relevant context?
You tell me to "read how [I] characterized Johnson's comment to Joan in [my] post, to wit: 'He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment.'"
You call that "a gross and intellectually dishonest mis-characterization of what Johnson said, which was this:
'I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread ...'"
But you don’t explain how Joan could "more fully develop the hypothetical" at "hundreds of blogs" unless she was to continue to comment?
I'll be sure to tell readers on the main page you said I was a "fool" and "intellectually dishonest."
John
John,
I have followed your blog for three years and have been extremely impressed by the quality of your work. I've looked forward to reading what you have to say virtually every day, commented a few times, and have enjoyed virtually every minute.
Until now.
John, as a friend, please let it go. Life's just too short.
Grafton Potter
So, Joan, how is Professor Johnson's allowing you to post 8 times -- over 2,500 words -- on a tangential topic keeping you from your "free marketplace of ideas"?
If there are to be absolutely no constraints on your speech, then you'll admit that Debrah's "gem of civility" shouldn't have come down?
Now, see if you can answer the question, yes or no: Were you banned from D-i-W? MOO! Gregory
Gregory, If you'd stay at one Blog, you'd get an answer. I have a two part answer (only one cleared) where you originally posted.
Rather than repeat all that, I'll say that my issue with KC was not how many comments of mine he cleared. It was, as recorded on the private area of LS... as we watched in real time...that he HELD my comments and cleared many others.
HELD...like in suppression...there in Lightest OF Touches Moderating Land.
Maybe some mysteries will make sense to you now: that's one reason I MADE so many comments. They were heading into cyberspace and I have that side of me that kept persisting.
At one point, KC held three comments while posting others. I was stunned...I never believed he moderated like that. The discussion is all there. Go read that private thread to see it all happening...or send someone you trust who has access.I'll bump it up so you can find it.
So hey,Gregory,what does that say about KC's integrity in that post yesterday?
Yes, that's why I had so many (unpublished) words.
Later someone else made my point and I fired off something to the effect that I now had to send emissaries to Court. That's why I used the word "emissary." Because my posts were not being accepted. Another mystery revealed.
I guess Big Mr. Free Marketplace was suppressing my widdle bitty ideas.
As for Debrah, her many ugly comments stand as testimony of the hypocrisy of "civility" over there.
Was I banned?
My thoughts were. I was told to take them elsewhere. I was told certain thoughts could not be exchanged in the Free Marketplace. Apparently, my person was allowed. as long as my thoughts towed the line.
Is THAT the model for all these errant academics you're pushing over there?
Gregory, one further point.
I made the comment I was banned over and over. Obviously I believed it.
But only KC knew if that was indeed correct or not. Only HE could say, yes or no.
He might have corrected me right there on his Blog...either before he posted Debrah's attack and let it sit for hours...or later in his very general apology for enabling such an attack.
In fact, the apology provided the perfect opportunity.
Or maybe after I wrote my groveling apology THEN to him...once again saying "I think I was banned."
You know...this one:
**************
Joan wrote:
"Well, let me write a summary here.
On one hand:
KC Johnson played a major role in exposing this Hoax.
KC Johnson played a major role in its demise
KC Johnson IMO played a major role in saving three kids’ lives.
On the other:
I spent a bad afternoon at KC’s blog.
I came here and complained.
I think I was banned.
Today, a mistake was made, it was recognized, and amended.
It was a mistake. KC apologized on his blog.
I know this to be true.
I think that about covers it. I’m going to ask Tony to close this thread. "
*********************
Some "mistake." Stupid KoolAid Drinker. The "mistakes" happen over and over and over again.
Or an email the next day when I was receiving YET ANOTHER DOSE of his handmaiden's viciousness.
Is KC above little human efforts like that?
You all seem to make so many excuses for him. You require little of him that's certain.He may post about this matter but, heavens, he is NOT to be answered...just endured.
And one Spook, in an academic setting, if you tell another that you forbid the development of their hypothetical in your classroom or your presence ...one might call that a form of censorship. Certainly, it is not amenable to intellectual growth or freedom. Or do you think otherwise? Do you believe academics can ban certain ideas from discussion and still proclaim their openness?
One Spook and Moo!Gragory are frequent commenters at DIW. So is Debrah.
But don't judge us all by them.
KC's a shell of what he once was. But you have to admit he still gets off some good ones. That's why I keep visiting DIW.
Don't let their attacks stop you.
A friend.
joan foster
Allow me to preface my reply by saying, much as Bill Anderson did, that I find it difficult to criticize you because I so greatly admire the work you have done throughout this case.
That said, I also believe you are way off base in your assessment of Johnson's treatment of you.
Like you, I was dismayed by Johnson's "throw-away analogy" and I made a single comment to that effect, as did others. You, on the other hand, as the ever-brilliant pithy damn democrat Gregory pointed out, made 8 comments containing over 2,500 words reiterating essentially the same point.
Given that, I would suggest that Johnson allowed you a veritable "shopping spree" in his marketplace of ideas, more so than any other commentator on a single topic thread that I have seen in my over three years of following the DIW Blog.
And yes, his comments became snarky, and I do not blame him. Perhaps that should have been a signal to you that you had worn out your welcome on that point.
Second, I think you need to be extremely careful when you assert "... having three of my comments held while others cleared ... "
Johnson has stated that he clears all comments in queue, and, absent irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I would take him at his word for that.
When a blogger clears a comment, it goes to the Blogger server computer to be published which no doubt has a system and a sequence of its own and more importantly, over which the person clearing comments has no control. If one is tracking comments in real time as I have actually done, it is entirely possible that the Blogger system publishes the one it sorts first, regardless of what order a Blogger cleared it. Keep in mind that the same system is publishing several thousand comments from all over the planet all at once, so it may sort up and down on its own schedule, regardless of which order bloggers clear them. There may exist a number of variables in a given comment (ie. html, which some comments have and others do not; or length/characters) that affect how quickly it is published. In time, it publishes all of the comments in a given "batch" and they are ultimately displayed in the proper sequence in accordance with their time stamp, which is of course, when it was submitted by the writer and NOT when the individual blogger cleared it or when the Blogger software published it.
So, I'd ask you to be very careful making such assertions unless you are an expert on Google's Blogger Software.
Does the above qualify as my having considering the "particular context" you suggested?
The comment of Debrah's you copied was removed before I had an opportunity to read it. It is typical of her disgusting, demeaning drivel. But, please don't get me started on old Debrah. Her participation as a commentor is singularly the worst thing that can happen to any Blog. Quite a few commentators at DIW, myself included, have been the object of her insane wrath and people like her who have a pathological need for attention are best ignored.
And, while you characterize the "Banning Issue" as a "distraction of the real point," the drama I saw at Liestoppers about it was such that I expected to see WRAL video of you "perp walked" out of the Durham Library while other video showed FBI agents hauling your computer from your home.
You could have diffused all of that by using your own "best evidence" and simply writing to Johnson and asking if you were banned. That you did not is "telling" indeed. You could have saved poor John from having to dress up in a suit of armor to defend you by tilting at windmills as well.
In summary, you were allowed ample opportunity and made your point at DIW, Joan. And you've embellished it and added some rather derisive comments and assertions about Johnson and his behavior at other venues, and you're free to continue doing so. The marketplace is vast. I'm sure some agree with you in total.
I, and others, do not. So be it.
One Spook
This is where we stand, Joan. I jumped into this debate full-speed yesterday. Since then we've managed to reach a final resolution of a number of your claims. These include:
1. We determined that your claim that Professor Johnson was too sarcastic is without merit. In fact, it was you who, it turns out, was the name-caller, and it would be charitable to say that you were extremely sarcastic. Professor Johnson, in stark contrast, showed great restraint.
2. We determined that your claim that Professor Johnson didn't allow you to explore the "marketplace of ideas" is without merit given that you were permitted 8 separate posts, totalling over 2,500 words, to make your case on an issue that was basically extraneous to the post. Moreover, Professor Johnson managed to clear 12 other comments that were disparaging of his analogy. That's almost 1/3 of the total posts on that thread.
3. We determined that the claim made by another that you had been banned from Professor Johnson's site is without merit. You have finally admitted that. Moreover, you let the allegation that you were banned from D-i-W swing in the wind since at least May 24.
4. I have determined that your claim that you weren't politically motivated is also without merit. As evidence, I would submit one of your posts in the April 25 thread, in which you wrote: "The problem is that we now have seen a very public demonstration of religious intolerance." Then, you went on to write, in the same post, "...here we see that certain Christian beliefs about traditional family are NOT be abided ...." Then, you finished up in the same post with, "How far shall we go in shaming and sequestering these traditional marriage folks?"
For these reasons, and for the great waste of time in proving your claims to be falsehoods, I'm done with you, and I'm done with this subject. I would like to thank our hosts, Chris Halkides and J-in-C. I do reserve the right to respond to J-in-C if he decides a personal attack is in order. MOO! Gregory
JWM:
In reply, I am tempted to simply ask you to reread your friend Mr. Grafton Potter’s thoughtful comment of 5:10PM. But, since you addressed me, I’ll give you the courtesy of a reply.
You are making me think that you have a reading disability. If you tell us that you in fact do, then readers will probably think that I am a fool.
Please read those two sentences again. Note the verbs highlighted in italics. Is it necessary for us to get into a discussion of verb tense?
You wrote, "In your comments you say I'm “a fool.."
I did not say that you are "a fool." However, if you feel that way, I humbly and sincerely apologize.
I did say that your presentation of Johnson's quote was a "gross and intellectually dishonest mis-characterization of what Johnson said." and I stand by that.
Bifurcating a quote in that manner is clearly intellectual dishonesty, and it is one of the oldest and most lame tricks in writing.
So, go ahead and post away on your main page, but be honest and use my words you wish to quote in their entirety, exactly as I wrote them.
Please allow me the courtesy you refused KC Johnson.
And, one more thing. What Joan said just in her last statement has no bearing on whether she was banned or not; that is not germane at all. I don't care if she clicked her heels together and said three times, "There's No Place Like Home." Johnson never banned her and never said he banned her, period.
One Spook
joan foster writes:
"And one Spook, in an academic setting, if you tell another that you forbid the development of their hypothetical in your classroom or your presence ...one might call that a form of censorship. Certainly, it is not amenable to intellectual growth or freedom. Or do you think otherwise? Do you believe academics can ban certain ideas from discussion and still proclaim their openness?"
Please.
I've been in many classes where a professor directed us to "move on" to another topic or terminated a topic for numerous reasons. If you believe that "intellectual growth or freedom" demands unlimited discussion of a topic for eternity, we'd all still be in school; a four-year liberal arts education would take a lifetime.
Give me a break.
You had ample opportunity to develop your hypothetical in that thread, Joan. Your ideas weren't banned at all. You had more than your say and your continued development was superfluous at best. Your continued "development" of same was headed nowhere, and the more you ramble on about it now, the more that is proven.
Yet you still have the opportunity for continued development at another venue, which you have done, and continue to do. Keep doing that if you must.
At DIW, the bell rang. Go play bridge in the Student Union. How's that?
One Spook
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Joan Foster thought she was banned-- she was told to take her ideas elsewhere.
KC Johnson did not think he banned her-- he thought he was ending a repetitious discussion on a topic not very germane to his blog.
Perceptions are reality to each person. In this situation there are two different views of the same events and communications.
Perhaps both sides should acknowlege the failure to communicate and move on.
sceptical
"For these reasons, and for the great waste of time in proving your claims to be falsehoods, I'm done with you, and I'm done with this subject. I would like to thank our hosts, Chris Halkides and J-in-C. I do reserve the right to respond to J-in-C if he decides a personal attack is in order. MOO! Gregory"
Since I am sure that Gregory is a big Rush Limbaugh fan, I'll simply sat, "DITTO" and thank you all for hearing me out.
One Spook
I agree with sceptical on this one. It seems clear to me that Joan hasn't posted very often at DIW and is not used to KC's way of handling dissent. It is also clear that KC is not used to posters as persuasive and persistent as Joan Foster.
I also feel that MOO Gregory's characterization of the exchange is unfair. Here is how I would put it:
KC used a poor hypothetical with the Miss CA example. Despite the fact that the vast majority of posters felt his choice was bad, he would not back down from it.
Joan had a difficult time grasping the fact of KC's refusal to admit the error in the choice of this example and became increasingly strident and demanding in her posts.
KC soon lost patience with Joan and became increasingly arrogant and sarcastic in his replies. Joan thought she had been banned and KC either didn't realize that fact or didn't care what she thought and didn't attempt to clarify that with her until it became an issue.
I don't see how we can blame John for thinking she was banned if Joan also thought she had been banned. I have seen some posters that also felt that way, and some like Zimmerman that didn't take it that way at all.
I also urge both John and Joan to step back from this (non)-banning debate. I find it very unlikely that KC will admit he was 'not correct' in the handling of this situation. The comment from Debra that remained for a long period of time is a separate issue and one that continues, in my opinion. I have had discussions with both Joan Foster and KC Johnson in the past and I agree with Bill Anderson's assessment on another blog that their personalities are total opposites.
Joan does speak from the heart, emotionally and with empathy. KC takes a more hardcore approach to dealing with what people say. He will focus on one phrase or sentence that interests him or that advances his cause, and then rip it to shreds.
Rougemont
“Does the above qualify as my having considering the "particular context" you suggested?”
Yes, It does, One Spook and I thank you for it. It was kind of you to take the time to do that. Additionally, I appreciate the effort you made in the way you to presented me the information. A little kindness…even in cyberspace goes a long way.
I apologize to Professor Johnson in regard to that issue.
I'm not unreasonable, One Spook, if reasonable people will just , as you did, show on point where I was wrong. I’ve sent Johnson a few personal emails over the weeks. I can’t say I ever received a reasonable reply.
Will one of you explain to me why Perez Hilton’s grade retaliation was a noble thing? What does KC mean when he implies there are people “not to be rewarded?” Where am I off track if I don’t think real people should be targeted as symbols?
Anyone who got what KC was saying that day…educate me. I’m still interested.
Help me with another point: Debrah's comments containing personal attacks being cleared over and over again. I don’t think anyone who is really looking for a free exchange of ideas tolerates or enables that type of character. Of course, it is KC’s choice to allow her to demean others in the most personal ways, but what does that say about him? Did you see the stuff he cleared from her about John? How does that fit in to his rules on the sidebar?
After seeing the attacks he cleared one after another toward John, can you make a good argument that the attack on me that sat on his post for hours was some believable “accident?”
You do not mention in your accusation that I kept this feud going… that I posted an apology to KC that very same day. It's here in a previous post. None of you care to acknowledge that I did DO that...as you try to paint me in the worst possible light. I think that shows my intention was to move on.
John and I did not ever exchange an email until he wrote to say he was ending his Blog.
KC is correct, banned or not, I rarely went to Wonderland. And all of you refuse to credit, in good faith, how often, in my beat a dead horse way…I articulated my admiration for KC. Even at the end of that day.
Nor do you take note of the email sent to me the next day from Miss Wonderland herself. I will concede KC is not responsible for her obscene hateful Emails, but he is for everything he clears on that Blog. I’ve heard his excuse is that she posts good local articles. So that’s the ethical compromise KC can so easily make …hurtful, personal attacks on others are a good deal for a little local color?
When people trust each other, when they can approach each other without arrogance, when they do not allow others to savage with THEIR permission, misunderstandings can quickly go away.
We “know” each other in a limited way..all of us. This was my first foray in cyberspace. Unlike most of the rest of you, I brought no particular expertise. But what KC and the rest of you certainly DID know that day, was that empathy is my stock-in-trade. I hated what was done to that girl for whatever noble purpose. I hated the smears directed afterwards at her by Hilton on his blog.
Yes, I got sarcastic as I assumed posts were disappearing into cyberspace…but I was answering sarcasm as well. Nothing I posted ever attacked KC or any of you…in the way that is standard fare for DEbrah. Has KC ever told her on the blog to find other places to take her type of comment?
Why do you think not?
Later I thought that anyone who could high five what Hilton did, certainly could let Debrah tear me up (along with poor innocent bystander Jackie) after I angered him. Sure enough, he let her smear John over and over again.
It’s a pattern.
I do not respect that nor think that serves any larger purposes.
Unless you can explain that too?
Gregory, YOU have concluded.
You.
In the big Marketplace of Ideas, one part will see things your way; another mine. I think it's great that you put out all this effort. But don't presume to use the Royal "WE."
You cannot reconcile that someone who supports Gay Marriage can also object to the:
"very public demonstration of religious intolerance."
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Why do I have to choose? I don't want traditional marriage people treated as a set of citizens "not to be rewarded." Nor do I understand why Gay and Lesbian citizens cannot have the benefits of legal marriage.
Why do I have to choose? Why do I have to limit my empathy and compassion.
Like the signers of the Listening Ad. I guess you can only listen to one side at a time.
Don't define me by your limits.
This post is now closed to comments.
John
Post a Comment